Oral
Answers to
Questions

COP26

The President of COP26 was asked—

Domestic Solar Energy

Afzal Khan: What assessment he has made of the potential contribution of domestic solar energy generation to meeting COP26 commitments.

Alok Sharma: Solar is a UK success story, with more than 99% of the UK solar PV capacity deployed since May 2010 totalling almost 14 GW, which is enough to power more than 3 million homes. As the Government’s British energy security strategy sets out, we want to see a fivefold increase in deployment by 2035.

Afzal Khan: The Government’s British energy security strategy sets out a very ambitious aim to grow solar capacity by five times as much by 2035, yet Xinjiang produces about 45% of the world’s supply of the key components used in solar panel polysilicon. Despite raising that issue countless times, my calls have languished, as the Government continue to import goods that use forced Uyghur labour. Will the Minister set out what steps he is taking to ensure that the expansion of solar capacity in the UK is not tainted by the ongoing Uyghur genocide?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. The Government are deeply concerned about the reports of forced labour and the impact on the global solar panel supply chain. He will know that the Government announced robust measures last year to ensure that no UK organisations are complicit in that, and those measures are now being realised. They include strengthening the overseas business risk guidance and introducing financial penalties under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. He will also know that the UK’s main solar industry trade association, Solar Energy UK, is leading the industry’s response through a whole range of measures.

James Gray: I yield to no one in my determination to see us reach net zero by 2050, but does the Secretary of State not agree that the  right place for solar is on buildings, including domestic buildings across the nation, as the question from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) suggests? We do not want hundreds of acres of prime agricultural land to be threatened, as is happening in Wiltshire, by vast and unplanned solar farms that people simply do not want to see, particularly post-Ukraine.

Alok Sharma: Of course, we want an expansion of renewables across the country, but I point my hon. Friend to the energy security strategy, which sets out our plan to ensure more rooftop solar, not just on commercial buildings but on public sector property.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Dr Alan Whitehead.

Alan Whitehead: The COP26 President acknowledges the tremendous contribution that solar has made and can make to the achievement of our net zero goals. I am sure that he also acknowledges that it is now one of the renewables that is cheapest and most quickly installed, so why are the Government ignoring its future development, having devastated the industry a few years back by precipitously withdrawing all support for development, and doing nothing to ease the penal planning restrictions on both domestic and ground-mounted solar installations? He says merely that he expects installations to increase fivefold by 2035, but without providing any support to allow that expectation to become a reality. Is it not time that the Government took seriously the contribution that solar can make to net zero targets?

Alok Sharma: I respectfully disagree with the shadow Minister; the Government are doing an enormous amount on this issue. In the latest contracts for difference auction process, solar is back in. We have already removed VAT on solar panels to allow installations on residential accommodation. If he looks at the detail set out in the energy security strategy, he will see that there will be a big focus on solar, wind and, of course, nuclear.

Glasgow Climate Pact: Businesses

Caroline Ansell: What assessment he has made of the role of businesses in implementing the Glasgow climate pact.

David Simmonds: What assessment he has made of the role of businesses in implementing the Glasgow climate pact.

Alok Sharma: COP26 was one of the first such conferences to have a significant private sector presence, as well as key corporate commitments to tackling climate change. For example, more than 7,000 international companies have signed up to the Race to Zero campaign, committing them to reach net zero by 2050 at the latest.

Caroline Ansell: According to the Met Office, my beautiful Eastbourne constituency has held the record for sunshine hours recorded in a month since 1911. Arguably, we should be leading the nation in harnessing solar power. On my right hon. Friend’s earlier point,  we do not have land readily available locally, but we have acres of rooftops, courtesy of three commercial and retail parks. What work is he doing, including with other Departments, to promote feasibility studies to identify untapped potential for solar generation and to promote financial incentives so that local businesses in my town can play their part in tackling climate change?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and her beautiful constituency is well worth a visit. She makes a vital point about rooftop solar, and she will know from the energy security strategy that our plan for rooftop solar is to radically simplify planning processes, with a consultation on relevant permitted development rights, to help support the deployment of rooftop solar on commercial premises. We will also consider the best way to make use of public sector roofs.

David Simmonds: Local energy companies are often well placed to support small and medium-sized enterprises with the transition to net zero. Local authorities, with their insight into local opportunities for things such as solar, are best placed to help with that. What assessment has the COP26 President made of the opportunities that that model may afford?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the role of local energy companies in helping the transition to net zero through the provision of renewable energy. Close to my constituency we have Reading Hydro, a community-financed, built and operated hydro plant that supplies renewable electricity to local businesses. The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change and I would be happy to meet him to discuss this matter further.

Toby Perkins: Is it not the truth that business has learned that this Government are entirely inconsistent from one day to the next? The COP26 President talks about solar, but only a few years ago the Government cut feed-in tariffs, which decimated the industry. Business really needs to know that the Government have a strategic plan, such as the Labour party’s green new deal, so that it can make long-term investments and know that the Government will say tomorrow what they are saying today.

Alok Sharma: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have published a net zero strategy that clearly sets out our long-term plans for creating hundreds of thousands of extra jobs. Green jobs get many billions of pounds-worth of private investment. One of the reasons we are not reliant on Russian hydrocarbons is that over the past 10 years we have built the second biggest offshore wind sector in the world, and we want to quadruple the size of that sector.

Tim Farron: The only net zero that really matters is the one for planet Earth as a whole, so does the COP26 President agree that there is real potential for shooting ourselves in the foot on energy-intensive industries in this country? I am thinking about James Cropper, the paper manufacturer in my constituency that makes the paper for poppies and Hansard, and paper with medical and military applications. If we tax it too much, or if we allow its  bills to be so high that it goes out of business, all we will do is export its carbon emissions to other countries. Will he talk to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about help for our energy-intensive industries in the long run?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are providing support to help energy-intensive industries decarbonise. Through the COP26 process, the breakthrough agenda is working globally to see how we can decarbonise some of the most difficult sectors. There is a global plan as well as a domestic plan.

Theresa Villiers: Will the COP26 President work with the agriculture sector on pursuing his COP26 goals? We have some of the most sustainable farming practices anywhere in the world, and many farmers and growers want to go further in playing their part in protecting nature and safeguarding the climate.

Alok Sharma: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and his Ministers are, of course, working on that. Again, at an international level, we are looking to start an agriculture breakthrough, so that we have a global focus on this issue.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

Deidre Brock: Facebook promoted ads containing outright climate falsehoods and scepticism during COP26, and it is reported that fossil fuel companies and lobbying groups spent an estimated $574,000 on Facebook ads during the summit, resulting in more than 22 million impressions. Many of these ads were directly aimed at undermining efforts to achieve climate progress. Does the COP26 President agree that the best way such businesses can help in the fight against climate change is to put the planet before their profits and come down hard on the climate naysayers? What action has he been taking to address that?

Alok Sharma: At COP26, probably for the first time at a COP, we saw the business community coming together in force to make commitments on tackling climate change. The business community is, of course, determined to deliver on these commitments. I will happily write to the hon. Lady separately on the specific issue she raises.

Tackling Climate Change

Steve Brine: What progress he plans to make on tackling climate change in his COP26 presidency year.

Scott Benton: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the Glasgow climate pact on tackling climate change.

Alok Sharma: Countries made significant commitments at COP26 on emissions reductions; finance and support for developing nations; and adaptation, loss and damage. We are continuing to press countries  to deliver on their promises. Together with the COP27 presidency of Egypt, I will next month be co-chairing a meeting of a representative group of Ministers from around the world, hosted by the Danish Government, to take stock of progress on the delivery of the Glasgow climate pact.

Steve Brine: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Winchester earlier this month for my “ask the Minister” session, which was attended by hundreds of my constituents and children from many schools across the patch, including Peter Symonds College, and for answering their questions so elegantly and openly. I am sure he would agree that the young people from those schools were so positive and care so much, that they asked searching questions, as they should, and that they are very optimistic about this presidency and the whole agenda. What more can we do to empower them to push forward this agenda during our presidency year?

Alok Sharma: I very much enjoyed my visit to Winchester and I commend my hon. Friend for all the work he does in his local community. We had some excellent questions from the very many young people at the event and they were positive in their outlook. In the planning for COP26, and in the country visits I continue to make, listening to the views of young people has been invaluable. That is why in the Glasgow climate pact we have urged countries actively to involve young people in climate change processes.

Scott Benton: As the Minister knows, the UK accounts for only 1% of global carbon dioxide emissions, yet the steps we are taking to combat climate change will cost businesses and the Government untold billions. Does he agree that while the UK does what is perceived to be the right thing, it is highly likely that other nations will miss climate targets and that the enormous expense and impact on our own economic competitiveness will all be in vain?

Alok Sharma: Tackling climate change is the right thing to do and it is also economically the smart thing to do. That is why at COP26 we had $130 trillion of private sector money signed up to net zero. It is why our presidency has managed to persuade 90% of global GDP to sign up to net zero. It is why our net zero strategy talks about many hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of inward investments. My hon. Friend talks about costs, but I just say to him: look at what the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates as the unmitigated cost of climate change. We are talking about almost 300% debt to GDP by the end of this century. I know that he is a fiscally responsible Conservative, as I am, and he would not want to burden future generations with that level of debt.

Peter Grant: The Minister will of course know that one reason why Britain’s emissions are so low now is that we have exported most of our filthy, polluting manufacturing industries to poorer nations of the world, so those countries are being polluted in order to provide for our lifestyle. It is almost nine years since world leaders agreed to establish a climate change impacts loss and damage mechanism. Last year, the Scottish Government led the world in committing millions of pounds to that mechanism. When do the UK Government intend to follow Scotland’s lead?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Gentleman will know, at COP26 we agreed the Glasgow dialogue on loss and damage. That was the first time we had significant text in the cover decision on this issue. That work is going forward, as is work on the operationalisation of the Santiago network.

Stephen Flynn: Of course as we urgently seek to combat climate change it is vital that we do so in a just and fair way, particularly for communities in the north-east of Scotland. Bearing that in mind, does the Minister agree that his Government should do three things: fund the Acorn carbon capture and underground storage project; match fund the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition fund; and finally, eventually, reform the TNUoS—the transmission network use of system—charging scandal that is happening at this moment in time?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman has eloquently raised a number of domestic policy issues and I know that the Energy Minister would be happy to write to him on all of them.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow COP26 President.

Ed Miliband: The recent climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was deeply worrying, saying that current global policies will lead to warming of more than 3°, but it also offered hope in the dramatic fall in the price of renewables, which means they are now the right choice for cheap energy and to tackle the climate crisis. Given that onshore wind is the cheapest, cleanest, quickest form of power to deliver and is also supported by a large majority of the public in the UK, will the COP26 President explain why the Government persist—including in their recent strategy—with planning policies that in effect block onshore wind in England?

Alok Sharma: I certainly agree that we need to do more in terms of renewables, which is what the energy security strategy is all about. We already have 14 GW deployed throughout the country and there is another 5.8 GW in the pipeline. On future developments, we have said that we want to work in partnership with supportive communities that will host new onshore wind farms, and in return they will enjoy such benefits as local energy discounts.

Ed Miliband: The COP26 President knows that the Prime Minister caved in to those who wanted to block onshore wind—and I think the Minister for Energy knows it too.
Let us try another. To tackle the cost of living crisis and the climate emergency, energy efficiency measures are a no-brainer, but the Chancellor steadfastly refused to offer a penny more for energy efficiency in the recent strategy, meaning higher bills for people and more people in fuel poverty. The COP26 President is responsible for holding Departments to account for net zero; is it not time for him to wield some presidential power, knock heads together and sort this problem out?

Alok Sharma: The cost of living is an issue facing many families in all our constituencies throughout the country, which is why the Government have put forward  more than £9 billion-worth of support in respect of the cost of living. On energy efficiency specifically, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we are investing more than £6.6 billion over this Parliament to improve energy efficiency and decarbonise heat. That will of course lead to lower bills, particularly for those most in need.

Forest and Woodland Conservation

Duncan Baker: What steps he has taken to conserve forests and woodlands to deliver on the leader’s declaration on forests and land use agreed at COP26.

Rebecca Pow: The forests declaration is an unprecedented commitment from 141 countries, covering 90% of global forests, to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. It is underpinned by $16 billion of public and private finance, by sustainable trade and by support for indigenous people’s rights. We are working closely with the declaration’s endorsers to implement it.

Duncan Baker: I thank the Minister for recently visiting my constituency. She will know that North Norfolk is blanketed with ancient forests and woodlands. It is very encouraging that woodland coverage is increasing across the UK and that the Government are committed to preventing the loss of forest. Will the Minister update the House on what progress she is making to increase levels of woodland wildlife as well?

Rebecca Pow: It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s wonderful constituency and great, as ever, to hear about the precious ancient woodland in North Norfolk. We are acting on the need to increase wildlife in Britain in many ways: through the Environment Act 2021, the Government have committed to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030; we are using the nature for climate fund to accelerate tree planting that improves biodiversity; and we are increasing funding to bring woodlands into active management, which is fundamental to the enhancement and conservation of wildlife.

Anna McMorrin: We know that deforestation is causing huge issues for indigenous people around the world. What more can the Government do to put pressure on Governments worldwide, and particularly in Brazil, to prevent deforestation from being carried out by companies that operate here in the UK?

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Lady raises a vital point of which we are fully aware, which is why 141 countries signed that commitment in Glasgow to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation. The Government introduced a “due diligence” clause in the Environment Act, so we are making our businesses look at the sustainability of their forest products. We are leading by example, but we have a great deal more work to do around the globe to stop deforestation.

Topical Questions

James Davies: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alok Sharma: The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was published this month, makes it clear that the window to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5° is closing alarmingly fast. We need to make faster progress, so the UK continues to urge all Governments, but particularly those in the G20, to honour the promises that were made in the Glasgow climate pact. We are also working to get finance flowing to climate action. Last month, I co-chaired a meeting of G7 Ministers, multilateral development banks and the private sector on the expansion of just energy transition partnerships to support developing nations. Today, I will travel to the World Bank spring meetings to drive that work forward.

James Davies: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that rising international gas prices do not push back up the use of coal?

Alok Sharma: At COP26, all countries agreed to phase down the use of coal domestically, and we will continue to urge them to deliver on that commitment. As a result of the current energy security and pricing issues, I do believe that we will see an acceleration of renewables and clean energy capacity globally.

Rachael Maskell: To keep the hope of 1.5° alive, 28 billion tonnes of emissions need to be taken out by 2030. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to advance green new deals such as the BioYorkshire project so that they can get on and bring that new technology forward?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Lady will know, the Government are providing a significant amount of investment in new technologies, and, as I referenced in an earlier response, the contracts for difference auction process is one very good way of doing that.

Marco Longhi: Brazil announced strong environmental commitments at COP26 that exceeded expectations. My own visit to Brazil after COP26 reconfirmed that Brazil is experiencing an economy-wide shift towards lower carbon emissions. Will the COP26 President provide this House with his own observations following his own recent visit, and does he agree that Brazil also has much to offer the rest of the world in terms of renewable energy, especially where ethanol-based technologies are concerned?

Alok Sharma: I commend my hon. Friend for his work as the UK’s trade envoy to Brazil; he is doing a brilliant job. During my recent visit, I encouraged the Government to formally submit their 2030 emission-reduction targets of 50% under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and they have done that now. We also discussed Brazil’s plan for a significant expansion of renewables, and I offered to share the UK’s experience on expanding our own offshore wind sector.

Grahame Morris: This month, a set of floating wind projects under Cerulean Winds, worth a potential £10 billion, was announced alongside a memorandum of understanding with wind turbine manufacturer, Lamprell. Unfortunately, most of the fabrication work for these projects seems destined  to be carried out in the United Arab Emirates. Does the Minister agree with me, the GMB union and other manufacturing unions that we must do better in building back better and greener and providing UK-based manufacturing jobs?

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Floating offshore wind is a key part of the energy security strategy announced by the Prime Minister last week with a 5 GW target ambition by 2030. On securing and improving the UK supply chain, floating offshore wind is still a relatively nascent technology, but I will make sure that I take the point that he raises to the supply chain taskforce.

Harriett Baldwin: As the Foreign Secretary writes her international development strategy, what conversations is the COP26 President having about the importance of international climate finance for the very poorest countries in the world?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We need to make sure that we honour the $100 billion pledge, but, as I said earlier, we are also working with countries to ensure that they have funding for clean energy transition, and I am off to the World Bank meetings shortly to take that work forward.

Felicity Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to achieve net zero by 2050, we need to transition from North sea oil and gas, but very importantly, this is a transition and not an extinction, as many parties opposite are calling for?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital that we have a North sea transition; that is the purpose of the Government’s North sea transition deal and that is what we are delivering on with the sector. Some Opposition parties want to see an extinction. That would not be in the nation’s interest and would only lead to a rise in imported hydrocarbons, which is also not in our interests at this time.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister realise he is guilty of being too nice? We do not just need, “Where’s the plan, Stan?”; we need, “Where’s the money, honey?” Why does he not get into No. 11, shake the Chancellor of the Exchequer until his teeth rattle, and get the money that he should be putting into environmental concerns and saving our planet?

Alok Sharma: Since March 2021 and through the 2021 Budget and spending review, the Government have committed a total of £30 billion of domestic investment for the green industrial revolution. Not only that, but we are ensuring that many tens of billions of pounds of private investment flows into green transition.

Philip Dunne: Is extraction of fossil fuels from new oil and gas fields consistent with meeting our climate change commitments during the transition?

Alok Sharma: As I have said, we want to see a managed transition. That is not going to happen overnight. My right hon. Friend will also know that we have set out in our domestic energy security strategy that future  licensing rounds will have to be compatible with the climate compatibility checkpoint, which will be set out shortly.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Neil Hudson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 April.

Boris Johnson: I know the whole House will want to join me in wishing Her Majesty the Queen a very happy birthday for tomorrow. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today. I will then be travelling to India to deepen the strategic trade, defence and people-to-people ties between our two countries, building on India’s involvement in the Carbis Bay G7 summit. I will be seeing Prime Minister Modi in Delhi, meeting Indian businesspeople investing in the UK and visiting British investments in India.

Neil Hudson: Challenges with rural transport remain some of the greatest obstacles facing people in Penrith and The Border. I was pleased last year that, on top of the Government’s £3 billion national bus strategy to help areas such as Cumbria, Cumbria County Council received an additional £1.5 million to enhance provision as part of the rural mobility fund. I am sure my right hon. Friend can imagine my disappointment this month, however, when Cumbria was allocated no funding from the latest tranche of bus funding. Can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that Cumbria can look forward to future funding schemes to improve our vital rural bus services?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. He is a great champion for rural Cumbria and for bus services. He is right that Cumbria got another £1.5 million for buses. We want to put more into buses—I believe in them passionately myself—and I will ensure he has a meeting with the relevant Minister.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer: I join the Prime Minister in wishing Her Majesty a happy birthday.
Why did the Prime Minister’s press secretary Allegra Stratton have to resign from her job?

Boris Johnson: I bitterly regret Allegra’s resignation. I think it was very sad. She did an outstanding job, particularly since she was the one who coined the expression “Coal, cars, cash and trees”, which enabled the UK to deliver a fantastic COP26 summit last year.

Keir Starmer: Allegra Stratton laughed at breaking the rules. She resigned. The Prime Minister then claimed he was “furious” at her behaviour and accepted her resignation. Professor Neil Ferguson broke the rules. He also resigned. The Prime Minister said that was the right thing to do. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), broke the rules. He too resigned. The Prime Minister tried to claim that he sacked him. Why does the Prime Minister think everybody else’s actions have consequences except his own?

Boris Johnson: I feel the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in some kind of “Doctor Who” time warp. We had this conversation yesterday, and I explained why I bitterly regret receiving an FPN and I apologised to the House. He asks about the actions for which I take responsibility, and I will tell him: we are going to get on with delivering for the British people, making sure that we power out of the problems that covid has left us, with more people in work than there were before the pandemic, fixing our energy problems, and leading the world in standing up to the aggression of Vladimir Putin. Those are all subjects about which I think he could reasonably ask questions now.

Keir Starmer: These are strange answers from a man who yesterday claimed to be making a humble apology. Does the Prime Minister actually accept that he broke the law?

Boris Johnson: Yes, Mr Speaker, I have been absolutely clear that I humbly accept what the police have said. I have paid the fixed penalty notice. What I think the country, and the whole House, would really rather do is get on with the things for which we were elected and deliver on our promises to the British people. [Interruption.] You could not have clearer evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of Labour. [Interruption.]They have no plans for energy, they have no plans for social care—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Boris Johnson: And they have no plans to fix the economy.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Prime Minister, sit down. I want to hear what you have got to say, but I cannot hear when you talk in that way. I am here in the Chair: please, if you can help me.

Boris Johnson: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: No, I think we have had enough.

Keir Starmer: The state of it—the party of Peel and Churchill reduced to shouting and screaming in defence of this lawbreaker. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Now then, that is the last time. That Peroni that was just asked about—the hon. Member might have to go and take it. I do not want to hear any more, or else they will be drinking it.

Keir Starmer: Yesterday’s apology lasted for as long as the Prime Minister thought necessary to be clipped for the news. But once the cameras were off, the Prime  Minister went to see his Back Benchers and he was back to blaming everyone else. He even said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had not been critical enough of Putin. In fact, the archbishop called Putin’s war
“an act of great evil”,
and the Church of England has led the way in providing refuge to those fleeing. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to apologise for slandering the archbishop and the Church of England?

Boris Johnson: I was slightly taken aback for the Government to be criticised over the policy that we have devised to end the deaths at sea in the channel as a result of cruel criminal gangs. I was surprised that we were attacked for that. Actually, do you know who proposed that policy first of all, in 2004? It was David Blunkett—[Interruption.] Yes it was, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will remember. He said that it was a 21st-century solution to the problems of illegal asylum seeking and immigration. The Leader of the Opposition should stick with that. He is a Corbynista in a smart Islington suit—that is the truth.

Keir Starmer: I think the Prime Minister will find that Mr Corbyn does not have the Whip. I think that is a no, then. It is pathetic. He never takes responsibility for his words or actions. [Interruption.] Conservative Members were all there.
The Prime Minister also accused the BBC of not being critical enough of Putin. Would the Prime Minister have the guts to say that to the faces of Clive Myrie, Lyse Doucet and Steve Rosenberg, who have all risked their lives day in, day out on the frontline in Russia and Ukraine uncovering Putin’s barbarism?

Boris Johnson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to join the Conservative party and come and listen to the meetings of the Conservative party, he is welcome to do it, but, as I say, I think he is a Corbynista in an Islington suit. I said nothing of the kind. I have the highest admiration, as a journalist and a former journalist, for what journalists do. I think they do an outstanding job. I think he should withdraw what he just said, because it has absolutely no basis or foundation in truth.

Keir Starmer: That is how the right hon. Gentleman operates: a mealy-mouthed apology when the cameras roll; a vicious attack on those who tell the truth as soon as the cameras are off. He slanders decent people in a private room and lets the slander spread, without the backbone to repeat it in public. How can the Prime Minister claim to be a patriot, when he deliberately attacks and degrades the institutions of our great country?

Boris Johnson: How many has he had? Mr Speaker —[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Prime Minister, just a second. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answers. I expect it both ways.

Boris Johnson: It is an indication of the depths to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to sink that he accuses me—[Interruption.] He accuses me of traducing journalists. What he says is completely  without any foundation whatever. I did not attack the BBC last night for their coverage of Ukraine. He must be out of his tiny mind. I said no such thing, and there are people behind me who will testify to that. He is completely wrong. That is the limit of his willingness to ask sensible questions today.
This Government are getting on with the serious problems that require attention, such as fixing our energy supply issues and, by the way, undoing the damage of the Labour Government, who did not invest in nuclear power for 13 years, with a nuclear power station every year. We are standing up to Putin, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have elected a Putin apologist—that is what he wanted to do, and he campaigned to do that. We are fixing our economy, with record numbers of people now in work, productivity back above what it was, and over half a million more people on the payroll than there were before the pandemic began. That is as a result of the decisions—the tough calls—that this Government have made. We get on with the job, while they flip-flop around like flounders on the beach.

Bim Afolami: Founded in Hitchin by an inspirational man called Richard Lucas, the Govox mental wellbeing platform was started in 2018, following the sad loss of local young men to suicide. Since then, working with brilliant partners such as NHSX, King’s College London and others, the technology platform and support services have grown to support the mental wellbeing and mental health of over 40,000 young people in more than 10 countries. Today, Govox is launching its campaign to offer its services free to over 1,000 state secondary schools. Will the Prime Minister welcome this initiative and perhaps go to Hitchin and meet the people from Govox? Secondly, will he set out what more we can do to help young people and young men with the problems of mental health and wellbeing?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. I am very pleased to hear about the work that Govox is doing to support mental health and wellbeing, and we are putting more money into mental healthcare support—an extra £2.3 billion a year in the next financial year, which of course we can supply thanks to the decisions taken by this Government, which the Labour party opposed.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: May I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in wishing Her Majesty the Queen best wishes for her birthday tomorrow?
Last night, the Prime Minister may have convinced his Back Benchers and his spineless Scottish Tories to keep him in place for another few weeks, but the public are not so easily fooled. Eighty-two per cent. of people in Scotland said that they believed the Prime Minister lied to this Parliament, and to the public, about his law-breaking covid parties. Are they right, or should they not believe their lying eyes?

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. We had a long conversation about this yesterday. I understand the point of his question, but we are going to get on with the job of delivering for the people of the whole United Kingdom.

Ian Blackford: If the Prime Minister wants to get on, he should be offering his resignation to the Queen before her birthday. No Government can be led by a Prime Minister who is in a constant state of crisis to save his own skin. What is worse, the UK Government are now led by a tag team of scandal—a Prime Minister who cannot be trusted with the truth and a Chancellor who cannot be trusted with his taxes. Everyone knows that this Prime Minister is on borrowed time until the Tory Back Benchers count the cost of their council election defeat. In the meantime, families are counting the cost of a Tory-made cost of living crisis every day. After yesterday’s farce, is it not finally time for him to accept that neither his party nor the public can afford to keep him around as Prime Minister for one minute longer?

Boris Johnson: If that were true, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would be calling for my resignation. We are going to get on with the job in hand, and that is to deliver for the people of this country. By the way, he has not answered the point I made yesterday, which is that I think it is incredible that at a time when we need to stand up to aggression from Vladimir Putin, it is still the policy of the Scottish nationalist party to get rid of this country’s unilateral defence.

Kettering General Hospital Redevelopment

Philip Hollobone: If he will ensure that the NHS new hospital programme team (a) provide feedback to the local NHS trust on the strategic outline case for the redevelopment of Kettering General Hospital so that the subsequent outline business case can be submitted in July 2022 and (b) enable the drawdown of the £46 million of funding awarded in October 2019.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who is an excellent champion for Kettering. We are fully committed to the delivery of the new hospital for Kettering. The release of funding will be subject to the usual business case assessment process.

Philip Hollobone: The redevelopment of Kettering General Hospital is the No. 1 local priority for residents in Kettering and across north Northamptonshire. Will my right hon. Friend please be kind enough to facilitate a meeting with the Health Secretary for the three local Members—myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Corby (Tom Pursglove)—together with the hospital chief executive so that we can trigger the start of the drawdown of the initial £46 million of funding?

Boris Johnson: Yes; my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has told me that he has met those individuals before and he is happy to meet them again.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Plaid Cymru has been calling for 15 years for a law to ban politicians from being wilfully misleading. New polling by Compassion in Politics shows that 73% of people support such a law. Will the Prime Minister support a lying in politics Bill?

Boris Johnson: It is well known that the rules of this House demand that we tell the truth in this House, and that is what we all try to do.

Engagements

Nicholas Fletcher: Prime Minister’s questions is a wonderful opportunity for a constituency MP like me to ask the Prime Minister for a new hospital for Doncaster, and to ask for Doncaster to be the home of the Great British Rail headquarters. Sadly, there is a more pressing issue, and that is that men are dying so much younger than they should be. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss the merits of having a Minister for men, and the benefits of a men’s health strategy? That way, the next time I am fortunate enough to get a PMQ, I can lobby the Prime Minister for a new hospital for Doncaster, and for Doncaster to be the home of the Great British Rail headquarters.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area, and we are determined to tackle all the health conditions that he describes and cares about, particularly mental health and suicide prevention. I note his plea for a new hospital, and I know it is shared by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends. This Government are funding that and making it possible, thanks to the decisions we have taken allowing our economy to grow, which would not have been possible if we had listened to the Opposition.

Justin Madders: In the Labour party, we believe not only that law breakers cannot be law makers, but that tax raisers should be taxpayers. When people in powerful positions pick and choose where they pay their taxes, it is an insult to everyone else who does not have that luxury. May I ask the Prime Minister how many members of his Cabinet have ever been involved in a tax avoidance scheme?

Boris Johnson: What we try to do in this Government is cut taxes for the whole country, and I am proud to say that what the Chancellor did in the recent spring statement, by lifting the threshold for national insurance contributions, was to have a tax cut of about £330 for most people in this country. That is a fantastic thing.

Sarah Atherton: Mr Speaker, if you live in north Wales and want to watch international sport, you will have to travel four hours to Cardiff or Swansea. The Wrexham Racecourse, with its historic Kop stand, is home to Wembley-bound Wrexham football club. It is the oldest international stadium in the world, and forms part of our levelling-up fund bid. Does the Prime Minister agree that round 2 of the levelling-up fund offers an excellent opportunity to level up access to sport?

Boris Johnson: There could be no better campaigner for Wrexham and for the interests of Wrexham sport. I will do what I can, but my hon. Friend will know that £121 million from the first round of the levelling-up fund was awarded to Wales, and I am sure that Wrexham has every chance of success in the future.

Christian Wakeford: The Prime Minister has been asked about the sodium valproate scandal previously, but Shaun Lintern at  this weekend revealed that campaigners were blacklisted, including my constituent Emma Murphy, who is here in the Gallery today. Advice from the Cumberlege report has been ignored, warnings are still not on medication as of a couple of weeks ago and a redress scheme is still not forthcoming. Will the Prime Minister meet me and campaigners such as Emma to discuss what can be done to right this incredible wrong?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Member very much for raising the point. I understand that we have had a review already of the issue, but I will make sure that he has a proper meeting or that he and the campaigners he mentions have a proper meeting with the relevant Minister in the Health Department.

Robert Jenrick: My constituent Aiden Aslin has served in the Ukrainian armed forces for four years. Last week, he was captured by the Russian army in Mariupol. Yesterday, a video emerged of my constituent handcuffed, physically injured and being interviewed under duress for propaganda purposes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a flagrant breach of the Geneva convention, that treating any prisoner of war in that manner is illegal, that the interviewer—Graham Phillips—is in danger of prosecution for war crimes and that any online platform such as YouTube that hosts propaganda videos of that kind should take them down immediately?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much, and I think everybody will want to urge the Russian state to treat his constituent humanely and compassionately, because in my view, although we do not encourage people going to that theatre of conflict—in fact, we actively dissuade them from doing so—I understand that he had been serving in the Ukrainian forces for some time, and his situation is very different from that of a mercenary. I hope that he is treated with care and compassion. I thoroughly echo the sentiments that my right hon. Friend has expressed about those who broadcast propaganda messages.

James Murray: This Conservative Government are raising taxes on working people in the middle of a cost of living crisis. May I press the Prime Minister on whether he agrees that it would add insult to injury if his Chancellor or any other Government Ministers were to benefit from overseas tax havens in their personal tax affairs?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You are not responsible for that, Prime Minister.

Boris Johnson: Good point, Mr Speaker, but we are responsible for cutting taxes for everybody, which is what we are actually doing.

Aaron Bell: Newcastle-under-Lyme is receiving over £50 million of Government investment into our high street and the high street of Kidsgrove in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), but it is all being overshadowed by the ongoing  environmental disaster at Walleys Quarry. In January, the operator was hit with three category 1 breaches by the Environment Agency. My constituents are utterly sick of it, and it has been going on for far too long, Prime Minister. We need to see tougher enforcement and we need to see the permit taken away. What hope can he give my constituents? How can we stop the stink?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend has raised this issue before and I know how infuriating it is for his constituents. That is why the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has now ordered action against the site operator, and I can tell my hon. Friend that permanent capping will begin on site next month, which will improve things for thousands of residents in his constituency. If it is necessary to take further action to remove those malodorous vapours, we will do so.

Ruth Jones: With details of the Sue Gray report trickling out, a flood of photos of partygate yet to be released and any number of fixed penalty notices liable to be leaked, this is a Prime Minister who is not fit to run a bath never mind this country. It is time for him to stop this ridiculous charade that he believes no rules were broken. Will he commit to making public every fixed penalty notice he receives; will he publish the party photos taken by the official photographer; and will he ensure that Sue Gray’s report is published at the earliest opportunity? We have a right to know the truth.

Boris Johnson: On my own fixed penalty notice, I have been transparent with the House—and will be—and I have apologised. On the rest of it, I really think, as I have said before, that the House should wait for the conclusion of the investigation when Sue Gray finally reports.

John Hayes: Long ago in a far off place, thousands of British servicemen sailed into what was for them the unknown as they witnessed the early tests of nuclear weapons. They have lived with the consequences of that service to our nation ever since. Following a question to the Prime Minister from the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), he agreed to meet us and those veterans. Will he now assure the House that he will take personal charge of the decision on whether to grant the remaining servicemen—for there are few left—the service medal they so richly deserve?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for campaigning on this issue, which I know attracts support across the House. I will certainly take personal charge of the matter and make sure that the veterans receive the recognition they deserve.

Liz Twist: My constituents across Blaydon knew the rules and stuck to them, nurses and teachers included—no after-work drinks for them. The Prime Minister set the rules. Night after night, he was on national television to exhort us to stick to the rules for everyone’s sake, but he continues to say that he does not think he broke any rules. My constituents are angry that while they stuck to the law, the Prime Minister broke it. Trust in his Government is broken: when will he go?

Boris Johnson: I understand the feelings of the hon. Lady’s constituents and I continue to express my apologies for the FPN that I received, but the Government will get on with tackling the issues that face this country and delivering for the British people. That is my priority.

Robert Buckland: Like many others across the country, one of my constituents has been helping directly with the humanitarian effort in Ukraine and the region. He received the most troubling message from a resident of the city of Kherson only days ago, which said that
“there are no green corridors for evacuation. People are trying to flee the city at their own risk, under fire. The Russians are living in our homes, they are plotting terror, robbing, harassing, kidnapping and killing our people, doing whatever they want.”
What more can my right hon. Friend and the international community do to ensure that Putin and those who do his bidding are brought to justice for their crimes?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an incredibly important point. The savagery that the Russians are unleashing on Ukraine knows no limits and is clearly authorised from the very top. He asks what more we can do. What we need to do is make it clear to serving officers in the Russian forces that if we can proceed with the international criminal prosecutions that we want to see, they will eventually face justice in the way that those who participated in massacres in Bosnia faced justice in the past. I hope that that will have a chilling effect on their current appalling conduct.

Nick Smith: Every week, examples emerge of Government waste during covid, and last year the former Health Secretary told me that there had been no profiteering and no cronyism. Does the Prime Minister still agree with him?

Boris Johnson: I am sad to say that I think a lot of people made money out of covid in a way that perhaps they should not have done. We deplore that and we are trying to recoup as much as we possibly can, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of the constant clamour from the Opposition and from the country for us to equip our country with PPE and medicines as fast as possible, and that we did.

Dean Russell: Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking the brilliant staff and volunteers at Watford General Hospital for their tireless work for our community over many years? Does he agree that we should get started as soon as possible on the ambitious plans put forward by West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust as part of the new hospital programme to transform healthcare across our whole community, so that staff and patients can access world-class health services and facilities fit for the 21st century? I will add, if I may, that these ambitious plans are truly shovel-ready, and I will gladly go and buy a shovel today to get started.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Watford. I know, because I have been to see him several times, that he has been campaigning to get this hospital in Watford ever since he was triumphantly elected, and he is going to be successful, because there  will be a new hospital scheme in his local area as part of our plan to deliver 48 new hospitals in this country by 2030.

Richard Thomson: The Prime Minister’s fundamental political problem at the moment is not about parties, or fixed penalty notices, or cake. It is about the lack of trust, integrity and credibility at the heart of Government, which he himself now personifies. When is the Prime Minister going to realise that people do not want to hear any more glib, half-hearted non-apologies, or hear him witter on about getting on with the job? They just want this Pinocchio Prime Minister to pack his bags and go.

Boris Johnson: When are the Scottish people going to hear—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Prime Minister, sit down.

Boris Johnson: Sorry, Mr Speaker. When are the Scottish people going to hear an ounce of sense from the Scottish nationalist—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Prime Minister, we cannot both stand up at the same time. I am trying to be helpful. We have got to be more moderate in the type of language used. “Pinocchio” is not acceptable. I am sure the hon. Member wishes to withdraw it quickly.

Richard Thomson: Mr Speaker, I withdraw that, but he packs his bags and goes.

Hon. Members:: That is not a withdrawal.

Lindsay Hoyle: You have withdrawn it?

Richard Thomson: I withdraw.

Lindsay Hoyle: Withdrawn. Let’s get on. Prime Minister.

Boris Johnson: Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I do not know what the question is, because the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn it. The answer is that we are going to get on with the job, and it would be nice to hear an ounce of sense from the Scottish nationalist party, or see some competent government.

Theresa Villiers: The London Borough of Barnet is surrounded by Labour councils, all of which have higher council tax and have abandoned weekly bin collections. Will the Prime Minister urge everyone to come out on 5 May and vote Conservative in order to keep council tax lower than Labour would and to protect our weekly bin collections?

Boris Johnson: Quite right—Conservative councils fix four times more potholes, recycle twice as much, and charge less.

Rachel Hopkins: The ministerial code states that Ministers have a
“duty…to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life.”
The Prime Minister has broken the law and repeatedly shown contempt for the British public. Conservative MPs seem content to decry the principles of honesty and integrity, as they unashamedly defend him. The public want him gone. We want him gone. When will he do the right thing and resign?

Boris Johnson: I know why they want me gone. It is because we are going to get on and show that this Conservative Government are going to deliver for the British people—fixing our cost of living issues, making sure that we solve our long-term energy problems, and delivering everything we promised—and they have absolutely no plan. That is the difference.

David Evennett: On the Conservative Benches, we were elected to make the most of our Brexit freedoms—[Interruption.] They don’t like it, Mr Speaker, they don’t like it. That includes tackling illegal immigration, securing our borders and cracking down on the evil people-smuggling trade. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our groundbreaking partnership with Rwanda will do just that?

Boris Johnson: It is a part of the solution. It is something that, as I said just now, was advocated in 2004 by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett, a Blairite Home Secretary. It is now attacked in the most ludicrous terms by the current Labour Opposition, who are obviously, as I just said, Corbynistas in Islington suits.

Rupa Huq: I wonder what the Prime Minister makes of this quote:
“When a regime has been in power too long, when it has fatally exhausted the patience of the people, and when oblivion finally beckons…across the world you can rely on leaders of that regime to act solely in the interests of self-preservation, and not in the interests of the electorate”.
His words, Mr Speaker: The Daily Telegraph, 28 February 2011. Does he still agree: yes or no?

Boris Johnson: All I can say is that I am delighted that the hon. Lady is a reader of The Daily Telegraph. What she needs to do is keep going to the end of the article. That is my advice to her.

Points of Order

David Evennett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the Conservative Benches, we strongly believe in the BBC and we believe it does a great job, especially on reporting from Ukraine. The suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister suggested somewhat different in last night’s meeting, which I attended, is absolutely inaccurate. The Leader of the Opposition should retract that, because he has misled the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I was not there, so it would be impossible for me to comment on something I do not know. [Interruption.] Yes, but I think it is more for my judgment, and I do not know, but I will certainly look into the matter.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that all of us in this House are fair game to the media, and that all of us enjoy many of the political commentators and sketch writers, but this morning’s edition of The Times carried a Quentin Letts article that I believe was sexist, misogynist and totally unacceptable. The way he described my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) was not about what she said; it was about everything but the substance of any speech. It was cruel and it was disgraceful. I do not know what we can do about it, but Quentin Letts specialises in a misogynist approach, especially towards women in the Chamber. Is it time we withdrew his parliamentary press pass?

Lindsay Hoyle: No, in a nutshell. You have quite rightfully raised the matter; it is not a point of order for the Chair, but you have certainly put it on the record.
It is important that we have tolerance and moderate language, but in fairness we need freedom of the press. I have taken the hits sometimes as well, as you yourself have. What I would say is that there is a level, and we all judge that level. You have judged this to go beyond it, and I accept that that is why you have put the matter on the record. I think, for that purpose, we will leave it there.

Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of the incident with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), when he was driving through—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just say that I am well aware of it? I have had a discussion and I am having a meeting later, but I will certainly not raise on the Floor of the House the issue of security at the moment. I would sooner have that meeting first; if we are not satisfied then, I will come back by all means, but there is some information that I do not want to come—[Interruption.] I would sooner leave the security issue, because it was a worry and it is a problem. I would sooner not air it here until I have met the three Members concerned—there is more than one.

Robert Halfon: May I make a general point?

Lindsay Hoyle: A general point, but I do not want to open up the security issue.

Robert Halfon: If it is possible, Mr Speaker, will you look at having a police officer outside the gate, not just inside it, as people drive in?

Lindsay Hoyle: Once again, I do not want to be brought into a security issue. I think it is better that we leave it there, but please come and see me privately and we can certainly have a discussion.

Hereditary Titles (Female Succession)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Harriett Baldwin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the succession of female heirs to hereditary titles; and for connected purposes.
On this day, when we join in wishing Her Majesty a very happy birthday, we can note that we have been blessed to live in a new Elizabethan era in which Her Majesty has long reigned over us. We celebrate her platinum jubilee with true devotion.
The Succession to the Crown Act was given Royal Assent in 2013, meaning that henceforth the firstborn child of Prince George will be in line to succeed him. The Act ended male primogeniture for the Crown, but we left undone any wider reform to primogeniture in the United Kingdom. As a result, in this very Parliament, an eighth of the seats in the other place are reserved for men only. Can you believe that, Mr Speaker? I will repeat it, as I find it so shocking: an eighth of the seats in the upper House of this Parliament are reserved for men only, through the system of reserving 92 seats for hereditary peers.
Whatever our views are of the other place or of hereditary peerages more generally—I know that there will be a wide range of views—I hope we can all agree that in the 21st century, that embedded sex discrimination is simply not acceptable. Women are treated unfairly for no reason other than that they are women. That is unacceptable and indefensible, and it has terrible real-world consequences. For example, only 13% of land in the UK is owned by women—in other words, 87% is owned by men—and boys are twice as likely as girls to inherit family businesses.
If we cannot change inequality at the top of our society, we will never be able to change inequality for the whole of our society. Put simply, daughters should be treated the same as sons across society. If it is good enough for the succession to the Crown, it should be good enough for everyone else. The hereditary peerages in the other place should go automatically to the eldest child, but at the moment that very rarely happens.
My Bill would not apply immediately when a son is due to inherit a title, and it would certainly not be retrospective. If there were already a son in the line of succession, that would remain the case. The Bill would affect 803 hereditary peers, including 24 dukes, 34 marquesses, 191 earls, 115 viscounts and 426 barons, and four countesses and nine baronesses in their own right.
Each of them could potentially be one of the 92 hereditary peers, or be on the register to stand as a hereditary peer in a by-election to the House of Lords. I understand that the register of peers for the by-elections has 210 peers on it, only one of whom is female. As that demonstrates, it is already possible to be a female hereditary peer, but clearly, because of the current system, that does not happen as routinely as it does for males, and the system clearly is not fair.
As a Conservative, I stand for equality of opportunity. We want every person born in this country to enjoy the same chance to make a difference, to thrive and to prosper. I cannot rest until this posh glass ceiling is broken. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who tried to introduce the same Bill in March 2019; he is a champion of true equality. I also pay tribute to Charlotte Carew Pole of Daughters’ Rights, who helps to keep this just cause alive in this place.
Let us agree today that we will make this small and symbolic change for our country’s sake, and for the sake of equality between men and women.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Harriett Baldwin, Nickie Aiken, Ms Harriet Harman, Philip Davies, Christine Jardine, Mrs Maria Miller, Jess Phillips, Esther McVey, Sarah Champion, Tim Loughton and Sir Christopher Chope present the Bill.
Harriett Baldwin accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 304).

Subsidy ContRol Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Subsidy Control Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 22 September 2021 (Subsidy Control Bill (Programme)) and 13 December 2021 (Subsidy Control (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.

Subsidy Control Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments
[Relevant Document: Oral evidence taken before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee on 30 November 2021 on State Aid and Post-Brexit Competition Policy, HC 742.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Financial privilege is not engaged by any of the Lords amendments.

Clause 10 - Subsidy schemes and streamlined subsidy schemes

Paul Scully: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 2 to 12.
Lords amendment 13, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 14 to 51.

Paul Scully: Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for the shared ambition, across both Houses, to create a domestic subsidy control regime that will work for people and communities throughout the United Kingdom. The rigorous debate in both Houses has resulted in the improved Bill that is before us today, and I hope that the Government amendments passed by the House of Lords will in turn be accepted by this House.
I shall start with Lords amendments 13 to 38, 44 to 47 and 51, relating to the topic of transparency. This topic has been well championed in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is no longer in his place. First, in place of the higher transparency thresholds that applied to subsidies given under a published scheme, and given as minimal financial assistance or services of public economic interest assistance, we have introduced a single upload threshold of £100,000, which now applies to all subsidies that are subject to the transparency requirements. Of course, there has never been a threshold for regular stand-alone subsidies, which all need to be published. This represents a substantial 80% reduction from the original threshold of £500,000 for subsidies given under the schemes.
Secondly, we have significantly shortened the upload deadlines; for non-tax subsidy awards, we have halved them from six to three months, so that subsidies will be visible on the database far sooner. The third change is that we have introduced new obligations to upload certain permitted modifications of a subsidy or scheme to the database. Public authorities will now be subject to the same obligations to upload even minor changes, with the same upload deadlines as for the original subsidy. This will ensure that the database continues to provide up-to-date information about subsidies or schemes that are modified after they have been granted. Fourthly, we have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to review the transparency database at such intervals as they consider appropriate, thereby ensuring additional quality control.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for what he is saying. He referred to the fact that there had been thorough discussions in this House and in the other place. I am wondering whether those thorough discussions involved the devolved Administrations, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, but also the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. If there is disagreement, how do the Minister and the Government intend to deal with it?

Paul Scully: The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. We tried to work with all the devolved Administrations right the way through the process from beginning to end, and we have continued conversations with each of them over this period. Clearly there are, and will be, differences in the process. This needs to work for the whole of the United Kingdom, so I am keen that we continue the dialogue, whether it is with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, to ensure that we can do as much as we can to reach agreement, though clearly that will not always be possible; that is the nature of dialogue.

Deidre Brock: Is the Minister not saying that ultimately, on these devolved matters, the English Government, as represented down here in Westminster, will have a power of veto over the decisions of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments?

Paul Scully: No. However, the UK Government have a reserved power over subsidy control, so it is the UK Government who act on that reserved power.
Finally, we have introduced an amendment specifying that the Secretary of State may provide statutory guidance to public authorities on pre-action information requests—that is, the provision of information following a request about a subsidy decision to an interested party that is considering whether to ask the Competition Appeal Tribunal to review the subsidy.
I shall now move on to two amendments related to levelling up. Lords amendment 50 makes it clear that addressing local or regional disadvantage is considered to be an equity rationale for the purpose of assessing compliance with principle A. This puts beyond any doubt that a subsidy to address local or regional disadvantage can be given, provided that the other principles and requirements of the regime are met. Lords amendment 9 exempts from the prohibition on relocation those relocation subsidies that have the effect of reducing social or economic disadvantage. The subsidy must, of course, also comply with the principles and other requirements.

Jim Shannon: On the issue of levelling up, I know that the Government and the Prime Minister have given a commitment to levelling up all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I am always conscious that we want to see that actually happen, not just words. Can the Minister give me some assurance that Northern Ireland—where the cost of living is higher, wages are lower and products and consumer goods are higher in price—will, through the Northern Ireland Assembly, receive the levelling up that we should?

Paul Scully: Indeed, yes. Levelling up does not exclude any one area of the United Kingdom. It also does not exclude levelling up within regions; that is really important.  This legislation only provides the framework; the levelling-up fund, the shared prosperity fund and other measures that can use the framework will, I am sure, benefit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and Northern Ireland as a whole. It is really important that we get this right.
I am happy to report that we produced Lords amendments 1, 5 to 8, 10 to 12, 39 and 40 to respond to concerns about the Bill in the 17th report of this Session by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lords amendment 1 addresses a concern with clause 10. Parliamentary scrutiny of streamlined subsidy schemes made under clause 10 has been strengthened by giving either House the ability to annul any streamlined schemes after they have been made, by applying the negative procedure.
Lords amendments 5 to 8 replace the direction-making power in clause 16 relating to the designation of marketable risk countries with a power to make regulations for the same purpose. Lords amendments 10 to 12 relate to the powers in clauses 25 to 27 to change definitions in secondary legislation. Those powers will be removed. Finally in this group, Lords amendments 39 and 40 address concerns raised by the DPRRC about secrecy regarding the financial stability direction-making power in clause 47. These amendments make it clear that such directions will need to be published in due course. In addition, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has written to the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee to commit to notifying the Chairs of those Committees confidentially about the use of a financial stability direction.
I turn to Lords amendments 41 to 43 and 49, relating to the Competition and Markets Authority and the Subsidy Advice Unit. Although the Secretary of State could already direct the SAU to complete a monitoring report for a specified time period under clause 65(4), these amendments make specific provision in the Bill for more frequent scrutiny in the early years of the new regime. Instead of mandating a report within five years of the implementation of the regime, the tabled amendments require an initial report after only three years, to be followed up with a further report after another three years. After that, reporting will revert to a five-year cycle. The Secretary of State will retain the ability to direct that a report be made at a specified period after the publication of the second three-year report. The sunsetting provisions in clause 87(6) have been extended so that they take effect after the second three-year report. Lords amendments 2 to 4 and 48 are minor and technical in nature. They clarify definitions under clauses 11 and 82.
In summary, this substantial package of amendments represents an improved set of measures that will strengthen the new domestic subsidy control regime and make it more transparent and accountable. There will now be greater transparency of subsidies awarded, and improved oversight and monitoring of the regime by Parliament and the CMA. I am grateful to colleagues in both Houses for their hard work on, and attention to, this important Bill. They have helped to bring about these improvements, which I hope will be endorsed by Members from across this House.

Seema Malhotra: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I start by acknowledging all the efforts in the other place, and  thank the peers, staff and civil servants who have helped to move the Bill along to this stage. I also thank colleagues on both sides of this House, including all the Opposition parties.
As Labour has outlined throughout the Bill’s progress, we support the principle of a quicker, easier subsidy regime now that we have left the EU. However, we recognise that any subsidy regime must provide sufficient transparency and accountability for the spending of billions of pounds of public money each year. We have also repeatedly raised our concerns that this regime has failed to match up to the Government’s levelling-up rhetoric. We are pleased to see that many of the Lords amendments, including our amendment to Lords amendment 13, will improve the Bill in some of those areas.
I turn briefly to areas in which we would have liked the Government go further, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on these issues. The first is net zero. Labour has been clear that while this is framework legislation, it should not be an empty vessel. The Government should have used the opportunity of an independent subsidy policy to design a regime that supported their wider industrial policy and our national priorities. We were also disappointed that the Subsidy Control Bill was not published alongside a subsidy strategy. Net zero is a good example of this. The climate crisis is the greatest long-term threat facing our country and the world, and we need urgent action to drive down emissions. That is why, in Committee, we called on the Government to support our amendment to hardwire net zero into the principles that public authorities have to consider when awarding any subsidy or designing any scheme. There was cross-party and cross-Bench support in the other place for a similar amendment.
The Government’s response was that the Bill already contains specific principles that apply to subsidies relating to energy and the environment, but that is far too narrow a view of climate impact. Net zero should be a consideration for public authorities on all subsidies, from public transport to supporting R&D in our energy intensive industries. In rejecting both amendments, the Government have missed an opportunity to use subsidy policy as a tool to achieve their net zero targets.
As I turn to the amendments, it would be remiss of me not to mention the recent scandal at P&O Ferries and the Bill’s implications, which I have raised with the Minister. P&O Ferries is owned by DP World, the operator of the Southampton and London Gateway shipping terminals. As of today, DP World is still a partner in the London Gateway freeport and is potentially set to benefit from £25 million-worth of public funding. The senior executives of that company have admitted to the House that they broke employment law. However, they will benefit directly from public funding of the Government’s new freeports.
Beyond freeports, P&O Ferries has received £15 million of Government support since the start of the pandemic, both through furlough and the freight subsidy scheme. As the Minister will know, UK public procurement law contains grounds that bar businesses from bidding for public contracts. To pick one example, a bidder can be excluded because they have breached national minimum wage legislation.
By contrast, the Bill affords no power to the Secretary of State or the public authorities to exclude DP World from the receipt of public subsidies. I would be grateful if the Minister set out in his response how he will ensure that subsidies are not provided to firms that do not meet minimum expectations, including complying with the laws of this country.
Finally on the areas that we have carried over from previous debates, on devolution, it is a disappointment that we have not seen more movement on powers for the devolved Administrations. The Minister will be aware that we will continue to push for that as the Bill becomes an Act and on its implementation.
On the financial thresholds for reporting, Labour has raised concerns throughout the Bill’s progression that the threshold of up to £500,000 for publishing subsidies on the database and the gobsmacking £14.5 million threshold for subsidies to services of public economic interest were far too high. There were cross-party efforts in Committee—including from Labour and colleagues who represent Aberdeen—to introduce greater transparency into the database. I also pay tribute, as the Minister has, to the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for their work in this important area.
In the Commons, the Government resisted calls to lower the monetary thresholds, but we were pleased that, in the Lords, Government amendments 14 and 25 took heed of Labour’s calls and lowered the threshold for publishing subsidies on the database to £100,000. Lords amendments 26 to 30 and 32 lower the threshold for publishing subsidies to services of public economic interest to £100,000. Although we welcome the reductions in reporting thresholds, we are concerned that Lords amendments 22, 33, 34, 35 and 37 allow them to be changed by the Government without good reason. Having accepted the premise of greater transparency, will the Minister explain under what circumstances the Government would seek to change the thresholds? Without a clear explanation, we are concerned about why the Government felt the need to keep those powers in reserve.
I turn to the time thresholds for uploading information on to the database. Throughout the Bill’s progression, Labour has been clear that the six-month deadline for publishing subsidy details on to the database was simply far too long. Without their publication, interested parties have no way of identifying subsidies that may be harmful. Six months is enough time for damaging subsidies to inflict significant harm on competitors and, more broadly, on British competition and investment. We therefore support Lords amendments 17 and 20, which reduce the publication deadline to three months, and Lords amendment 19, which states that any modifications made to subsidies also have to be uploaded within three months. Although Labour would go further in reducing those timeframes, we welcome the amendments.
We also support Lords amendment 16, which sets a three-month deadline for uploading tax schemes on to the database. However, Lords amendments 15 and 18 still provide public authorities with one year to upload a tax subsidy on to the database and one year to upload modifications in relation to tax subsidies. Will the Minister explain why there is still a nine-month difference between the deadlines for publishing tax subsidies and publishing tax schemes? Why are the Government allowing such a long period for modifications in relation to tax subsidies?
On the issue of audit, as well as calling for the publication deadlines to be reduced, Labour called for the Secretary of State to take ownership of the transparency database and what is uploaded on to it. In their White Paper on Companies House reform, the Government recognised the dangers associated with creating a register without a regulator, yet they risk making the same mistakes. The information uploaded and published on the database is crucial to alerting interested parties to potentially damaging subsidies. If the information on the database is not accurate or complete, there is no transparency or accountability.
Lords Amendment 13 goes some way to ensuring that the Secretary of State reviews the database, but we are concerned that that amendment is too vague. It does not make it clear what the purpose of the review is, who will conduct it or how regularly. Labour has tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 13, which clarifies that the purpose of the review is for the Secretary of State to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information in the database. Amendment (a) has been tabled in a constructive spirit to clarify the legislation.
Although improvements have been made to the database—as we acknowledge— since the evidence we heard in Committee about its serious deficiencies, practitioners continue to have concerns. The name of the granting authority is currently not included in all entries. That is clearly a major gap, as it is the key piece of information that an interested party wishing to challenge a subsidy in the very short window available to them needs.
I turn to the Lords amendments on the Competition and Markets Authority. Lords amendments 41 and 42 mandate that the CMA lays its first report on the regime three years after the Bill commences and its second report three years after that. I spoke about increasing the frequency of the CMA’s reporting in Committee and I am pleased to see that that has been taken up.
We also support Lords amendments 43 and 49. However, under the Bill, the CMA has the power to report only on subsidies and schemes that are reported to it. As we have heard from experts, that leaves a black hole for accountability where a public authority wrongly concludes that it is not granting a subsidy. Such payments will not be published on the database and interested parties will therefore not be able to challenge them. In Committee, Labour tabled new clause 3, which would have given the CMA the power to investigate subsidies that may be of concern and subsidy schemes on its own initiative. Unfortunately, the Lords amendments have failed to address that issue.
There has been some progress on the issue of regional economic disadvantage during the Bill’s passage in the other place. As the Minister will have heard, there was anxiety from the devolved Administrations and Members across this House about the implications of the loss of assisted areas. The Bill, as introduced, contained no measures to ensure that subsidies could and would be used to reduce economic disadvantage between and within the regions and nations of the UK.
On Second Reading and in Committee, I stressed that the Bill failed to live up to the Conservatives’ levelling-up rhetoric. I am therefore pleased that the Lords tabled Lords amendment 9, which removes the relocation prohibition on subsidies that work to reduce social and economic disadvantages.
Labour also tabled an amendment to schedule 1 that would have explicitly added addressing a local or regional disadvantage as a policy objective that subsidies can pursue. That was voted down in the Commons, but I am pleased it was accepted by the Government in the other place with Lords amendment 50. The more than 300 pages of the levelling-up White Paper do not reference subsidies once, but I look forward to the Government publishing details of how subsidy policy will be used to achieve the White Paper’s objectives.
We support Lords amendments 1 and 4 relating to subsidy schemes and subsidies of interest. We are concerned, though, about when the streamlined subsidy schemes will be put in place. The schemes will be important for granting authorities to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic workloads, so when will the details be published?
Practitioners have expressed concern to us that clause 70(2) is not clear enough on the power to challenge an individual subsidy made under a scheme, or on when the clock starts ticking on that period of challenge. As drafted, the Bill appears to indicate that a damaging subsidy can be made, say, two years after a scheme is set up. As the deadline for challenging the scheme itself would have passed, there would be no mechanism for interested parties to challenge such a harmful subsidy. Is the Minister aware of that problem and is he taking any action to address it?
Finally, we support all the technical amendments—Lords amendments 2, 3, 10 to 12, 5 to 8, 39, 40, 44 and 51 —and the greater scrutiny they add to the Bill. However, Lords amendment 46 allows the Secretary of State to rely on consultation carried out before the Bill receives Royal Assent when issuing guidance. Ongoing engagement with public authorities and business is critical, and I hope the Minister can reassure the House that the Government will not be ducking this obligation.
Labour recognises the need for this legislation, which is necessary to meet our international obligations and, more than that, to protect the UK’s internal market and to ensure public funds are made available to firms, with appropriate safeguards put in place. The Lords amendments may not go as far as we hoped in some cases, including on devolution, but they significantly strengthen the Bill by providing the scrutiny and oversight Labour has called for from the beginning. However, it is regrettable that some concerns, including on the CMA’s powers and net zero, have not been addressed.
Well-designed, proportionate subsidies are a critical part of an effective industrial strategy to grow the sectors of the future and to invest in our transition to net zero. The Government now need to bring forward a plan to make that happen.

Kirsty Blackman: It is very good to be here to talk about the Subsidy Control Bill again. The Lords amendments that have been accepted and put forward by the Government do make the Bill better. The Bill is better as a result of almost all the amendments that have been introduced; I accept that that is the case. I feel sorry for the Minister because he had to argue against many of these amendments in Committee and on Report. Now they are in the Bill and he is arguing for them, which is great—I am glad he is arguing for them now—but I feel he has been put in a pretty unfortunate position.
Although the Lords amendments make the Bill better, it still falls far short of where the UK’s subsidy control regime should be. We still have major concerns about a number of significant issues. I recognise the improvements on transparency, particularly through Lords amendment 14, which I drafted in Committee, so I am pleased that the Government have put that forward and that it is now in the Bill. It reduces the threshold for subsidies to be included in the transparency database from £500,000 to £100,000. That is incredibly important.
The database will work, and we will know whether subsidies are working as the Government intend, only if we can see which subsidies have been made. The threshold of £500,000 was too high for us to have a good enough overview, and that is without mentioning people’s inability to challenge subsidies if they do not know they exist. Setting the threshold at £100,000 makes it much less likely that a company will be badly damaged by a harmful subsidy that it is unable to challenge because of the lack of transparency.
I am also pleased that the CMA will report on the regime after three years; the period has been reduced. Again, I moved an amendment on that in Committee. I proposed two years, but we can meet in the middle at three years. I am pleased that that reporting is going to happen. Particularly in the initial period, it is important that we know how the subsidy schemes, the database and the challenges are working. This legislation will work only if it is kept under review, and I am pleased that there is an amendment to that effect.
I am also pleased with the Lords amendment on the Secretary of State’s ability to review the database, as it will move and change. Things will need to be improved because this is not the end of the story on subsidy control. Once the Bill is on the statute book, there will still be a lot of consultation and guidance to come. The shadow Minister mentioned Lords amendment 46, which means that a significant proportion of the consultation will happen in advance of the Bill coming into force. The authorities that will be granting subsidies, those who will be receiving the subsidies and those who might be harmed by the subsidies need to have an idea of what the regime will be before it kicks in. It is important to consult and publish guidance as early as possible, and I urge the Minister to make good on his promises about ensuring that guidance is published in good time so that everyone can make the regime work. It will work only if people know how it works.
People still do not have enough time to challenge, and I would have liked the list of people who can make a challenge by right, without having to demonstrate that they have been individually affected by the subsidies, to include the Scottish Government, Welsh Ministers and Northern Irish Ministers.
It is disappointing that agriculture continues to be included in the Bill.

Deidre Brock: I am extremely disappointed that the views and concerns of the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the National Farmers Union across these islands, including NFU Scotland, about agricultural subsidies being in scope have been virtually ignored by this Government. They are certainly not reflected on the face of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend share those concerns?

Kirsty Blackman: I absolutely do. The Government cannot hide behind agricultural being in the trade and co-operation agreement, because the TCA specifically says that agricultural subsidies can and should be excluded from subsidy control regimes. The Government still have not given a good reason for including agriculture in the subsidy control regime. It works in the EU and in the state aid regime, so it is perfectly workable to exclude agriculture from the subsidy control regime. Including such subsidies will cause problems. The fact that NFUs across these islands have raised concerns shows that it is incredibly serious. I urge the Minister to think again about how the issue of agriculture is treated by the Bill.
The shadow Minister extensively addressed net zero. Granting authorities are required to consider the environmental and net zero impacts of energy-related subsidies, but that is not what net zero is about. This is not the only time we will be thinking about how to reduce our impact on climate change. If a granting authority decides to give a significant amount of money to a bus company, for example, it does not have to consider the climate impact. If it decides to scrap all the buses and replace them with diesel taxis, it does not have to consider the net zero impact, because it is not an energy-related subsidy. I am massively concerned that net zero is included only in schedule 2 and not in schedule 1. If the Government are serious about tackling climate change, they need to be looking at every piece of legislation that comes through this place and ensuring that it does not have a negative impact on our ability to meet net zero; and if it does, they should be ensuring that that is then balanced by further, more dramatic actions in order that we can meet net zero.
In summation, the Bill is better than it was, but it still falls far short. I am still concerned about transparency and massively concerned about agriculture. I am hugely concerned about the lack of importance this Government are giving to net zero—that should go through everything we do.

Paul Scully: I thank all hon. Members for their engagement throughout the passage of this Bill and for their contributions this afternoon. I am glad that there has been broad consensus, albeit with some questions, which I will try briefly to address. The importance of that new independent subsidy control regime has been clear throughout the passage of the Bill and it was evident again today, so I thank hon. Members for their broad support.
Let me respond to the question from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) about P&O and that kind of example. Clearly, we are shocked by the action of P&O Ferries and angered by the lack of empathy and consideration it has demonstrated towards its employees. The Government are continuing to work to establish whether P&O Ferries or DP World are in breach of any requirements of them as partners in the Thames and Solent freeports. Speaking more generally, I can confirm that the Bill ensures that public authorities can recover a subsidy where it has been misused, but it is important to note that the purpose of a subsidy is to achieve specific change in behaviour to facilitate a specific policy objective; it is not to give the Government ongoing leverage over how a company conducts its affairs. It is for other areas of law to set out the limits of what is acceptable corporate behaviour. None the less, because  the subsidy is there to have that specific policy objective, we will make sure that that policy objective is met as best we can. However, it is difficult to enforce—

Seema Malhotra: I am grateful to the Minister for his consideration of this point, but will he clarify whether a company that breaks the law and does not meet minimum standards on employment law, on environmental law or in other areas could still be in receipt of public subsidies through the subsidy control regime?

Paul Scully: It is difficult to come up with the examples, but in essence a subsidy is there to determine a particular policy objective. We would want to partner with businesses and companies that are most likely to deliver those policy objectives: reliable partners. Clearly, ones that are in breach of the kind of examples that the hon. Lady mentions are less likely to be those reliable partners. Technically, she is correct, but this is about how we enforce something, probably after the event; similarly, had we given P&O Ferries a subsidy last year, we probably would not have been able to get that subsidy back. That is the difficulty with enforcement after the event. None the less, the sentiment is absolutely there: we do not want to be partnering with unreliable companies to achieve our policy objectives.

Kirsty Blackman: The issue with that is that if a company is given money to run a freeport and it runs a freeport with that money, it can sack all the staff it likes at P&O and still be eligible for the subsidy. The issue is that there is a gap, which has been well highlighted by the shadow Minister.

Paul Scully: We will work out how the subsidy control regime is working; it is part of what I will come back to in a moment about the CMA’s approach to reporting back how the regime is working. We have to make sure that this is watertight—excuse the pun—if we are going to go down the road of making sure that we can recover any subsidies. I suspect that other areas of law will be better suited to approaching that, rather than specifically dealing with it within this framework Bill.

Seema Malhotra: I am conscious of time, but let me make this brief point, for clarity. There is an important distinction between companies or businesses with which the Government may be working to achieve policy objectives, and their eligibility still to receive public subsidies, potentially to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds or millions, where they have explicitly even admitted to this House that they have broken employment law. There is an important distinction here about how public money could be spent and about rewarding those who have behaved badly.

Paul Scully: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. This is what I mean about using other areas of law; other areas testing the value of the use of public money will be better suited for addressing exactly those points, but I very much take the one she makes.

John Redwood: Would it not in future be possible for the Government, when offering a subsidy to companies, to specify that they need to meet certain labour standards so that the subsidies regime would apply?

Paul Scully: Again, that is up to the public authorities. The whole point about this regime is that it is a loose, permissive framework, rather than something more onerous which adds layer upon layer to recreate the EU state aid system. None the less, I would expect that, again, because of value for money and good governance, any public authority, whether national Government, local government or another public body, would expect to have exactly that kind of criteria—

Kirsty Blackman: The Scottish Government asked that the freeports that were going to be in Scotland had green stuff in them and fair work rules, but the UK Government said no. Now the Minister is saying, “Yes, we can totally do that. That definitely should be in it.” The UK Government refused to let us have that in the freeports planned for Scotland.

Paul Scully: I am not going to get involved in a wider discussion about freeports; I am talking about a framework Bill, which is exactly why I said that other areas of legislation and of governance will better frame this area, as opposed to having it within this framework Bill. I am going well over time on this issue, because I wanted to cover some of the other areas.
Net zero has been mentioned. Schedule 2 contains a lot of common-sense principles already, which support the UK’s priorities on net zero and protecting the environment. They require subsidies in relation to energy and the environment to meet one of the specified aims, such as increasing the level of environmental protection, and to ensure that subsidies do not undermine the polluter pays principle. We talked about the tax subsidies and the timings. Clearly, within the timings of the tax subsidies a longer period is still necessitated, because of the fact that tax returns and such things take longer to go through the process—as opposed to having the immediacy of sponsorship through a subsidy or more immediate cash assistance.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston talked about CMA thresholds and limitations, but ultimately that is what the CMA will be looking at in any case as   part of its reporting back on the regime and its overall effectiveness. So we will always be able to look at how those thresholds and limitations are working in practice; we want to make sure that that can be put in place.
I wish to conclude by reaffirming what I set out in my opening remarks: this Bill creates a domestic subsidy control regime that will work for people and communities across the UK, creating a robust yet agile system that allows public authorities to provide subsidies where they are needed most. The rigorous debates in both Houses have resulted in the improved Bill we have before us, so I commend it to the House.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 51 agreed to.

Building Safety Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Building Safety Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21 July 2021 (Building Safety Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 19 January 2022 (Building Safety Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: 93, 94, 98, 107 to 109, 145, 184, 6, 1 to 5, 7 to 92, 95 to 97, 99 to 106, 110 to 144, 146 to 183, 185 to 191.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Alan Mak.)
Question agreed to.

Building Safety Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments
[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2019-21, Cladding: progress of remediation, HC 172; Fifth Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2019-21, Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill, HC 466; Seventh report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2019-21, Cladding Remediation—Follow-up, HC 1249; Seventh Report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, Building Safety: Remediation and Funding, HC 1063.]
Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.

Rosie Winterton: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 6, 17, 22 to 30, 103, 104, 111 to 113, 116, 120 to 127, 137 and 138. If they are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Before Clause 117 - Remediation of certain defects

Stuart Andrew: I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 93.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment (b) to Lords amendment 93.
Lords amendment 94, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 98, and Government amendments (a) to (c) thereto.
Lords amendment 107, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 108, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 109, and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
Lords amendment 145, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 184, Government amendments (a) and (b), amendment (e), Government amendments (c) and (d), and amendment (f) thereto.
Lords amendment 6, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 1 to 5 and 7 to 25.
Lords amendment 26, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 27 to 77.
Lords amendment 27, and Government consequential amendment (a).
Lords amendments 79 to 92, 95 to 97, 99 to 106 and 110.
Lords amendment 111, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 112 to 144, 146 to 183 and 185 to 191.

Stuart Andrew: I must start with a reminder of where this journey started: 72 people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which was the largest loss of  life in a residential fire since the second world war. All our thoughts are with those families who have lost loved ones. The Government are determined to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.
I thank the Members of this House, noble Lords, cladding groups and industry stakeholders who have worked tirelessly on this landmark legislation. I remind Members that the Bill not only creates an improved building safety regulatory system but protects leaseholders, who have become victims in the building safety crisis. We have stuck to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s principles on building safety, which are that we must make industry pay to fix the problems for which it is responsible; protect leaseholders; and restore common sense to the assessment of building safety risks, thereby speeding up the fixing of the highest-risk buildings and stopping buildings being declared unsafe unnecessarily .

Clive Betts: I accept that a lot of what the Minister is saying is correct—that those who are responsible should pay and leaseholders should not—but he missed out one group that has been particularly affected by Grenfell: social housing tenants. Why is the Minister not prepared to offer them the same financial support as he is giving to leaseholders?

Stuart Andrew: We continue to review all these matters. We are looking at and consulting on the whole of the affordable housing and social housing policy area, and we will come back to ensure that we get it right.

Bob Blackman: The Chairman of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee—the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—and I have been involved in the prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill and the whole process behind it. Is my right hon. Friend the Minister saying that not only can we pass the Bill today with the Government amendments but he will continue to look to revise the law and to embrace more people in the law through secondary legislation?

Stuart Andrew: The Building Safety Regulator will continue to make sure that all building safety regulations are adhered to. Mention has been made of social housing tenants, social housing and affordable housing; we will consult on that further down the line so that we can be absolutely sure we have got this right. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.
On 13 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to Members to update them on the progress in the negotiations with industry. We will now see the vast majority of developers fix all the buildings that they had a role in developing or refurbishing in the past 30 years. My right hon. Friend announced last week that, in addition to the existing building safety fund, the Government will establish a new cladding remediation scheme, funded by industry contributions, to cover all other unsafe residential buildings of 11 to 18 metres that contain private leasehold properties but a developer has not accepted responsibility for fixing them or cannot be identified.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister for what he is saying. He will be aware that I have had significant issues in my constituency, with many affected developments. In respect  of the Celestia development in particular, there have been long-standing challenges in getting answers to the questions that residents are asking. Redrow wrote to the Secretary of State to say that it will now take responsibility for paying, but it has not made clear whether that applies to Wales—the letter refers only to England. Will the Minister clarify whether he understands that such commitments are going to be UK-wide, given that it is a UK-wide issue? If they are not, what pressure will he put on Redrow to make sure that that commitment applies to Wales as well?

Stuart Andrew: I do not know the specifics, to be really honest with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that I have picked this issue up lately, and if he does not mind, I will come back to him with a definitive answer.
The leaseholder protections that were introduced in the other place put our commitments into law. Qualifying leaseholders—defined as those living in their own homes or with up to three UK properties in total in buildings that are above 11 metres or five storeys—will be legally protected from all costs associated with the remediation of unsafe cladding, as will all leaseholders in buildings owned by or associated with the developer. Leaseholders in buildings above 18 metres are already protected by the Government’s £5.1 billion building safety fund for the removal of unsafe cladding. It is the Government’s expectation that developers will pay to fix buildings that they had a role in developing or refurbishing.

John Redwood: Has it been possible to trace any foreign companies or foreign interests that are involved in these matters? Will they be making their contribution?

Stuart Andrew: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. I shall address that specific point later in my speech.

Stephen McPartland: The Minister has been a breath of fresh air since he has come to the Department, and the discussions have been very productive. Will he clarify from the Dispatch Box that for leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres, who currently have no protections, the Department would be willing to look at those buildings on a case-by-case basis if support was needed?

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend has invested a considerable amount of time in his campaign and I have enjoyed the opportunity to have those discussions with him. I will come to that point shortly, but yes, as a Department we will deal with those buildings on a case-by-case basis. I shall give more details as to why we have come to that conclusion.
We are protecting qualifying leaseholders from costs associated with non-cladding defects, including interim measures such as waking watches. Building owners and landlords will be prevented from passing on the costs to fix non-cladding defects if they are linked to, or are, the developer.
While the Bill was in the other place, the Government made a number of amendments to it that will restore fairness to the system and help those who have been  unfairly impacted by building safety issues. I know that many Members wish to speak, so I do not propose to go through each of the amendments made in the other place. The Bill now not only provides for a new regulatory regime but provides an extensive set of tools, in law, to ensure that those who bear the responsibility for defects are made to pay and to protect leaseholders from crippling bills for historic defects. In response to concerns expressed by Members in both Houses and by stakeholders, we have changed how the building safety charge works and removed the legal duty to appoint a building safety manager.

Royston Smith: The EWS1 form, which was brought about by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, has caused many problems  for people trying to sell their properties. We now have PAS 9980, which will not replace EWS1, but could the Minister say that from his perspective he would rather people look at PAS 9980, as opposed to EWS1?

Stuart Andrew: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has also been heavily involved in all this work. Yes, I can confirm that. I will elaborate later in my speech.
Let me turn now to the Government amendments to the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 94 inserts a clause that sets out the meaning of “relevant building”. The clause defines the categories of buildings to which the leaseholder protection measures apply. The Government originally proposed to apply the leaseholder protection measures to buildings containing at least two dwellings above 11 metres in height, or with at least five storeys. Amendments made in the other place extended the definition of “relevant building” to buildings of all heights containing two or more dwellings. We will take a very dim view of freeholders who seek to exploit leaseholders to pay for unnecessary works. The Department is aware of a handful of low-rise buildings where freeholders have been commissioning such works and we are addressing such buildings, as I said a moment ago, on a case-by-case basis, but we must restore proportionality to the system. That is why the Government do not agree with the extension of the scope of leaseholder protections to include buildings under 11 metres. There is no systematic risk of fire with buildings below 11 metres. Low-rise buildings are therefore unlikely to need costly remediation to make them safe. Lower-cost mitigations such as fire alarms are likely to be far more appropriate and proportionate. Assessments carried out in accordance with the new PAS 9980 principles should produce more proportionate responses than costly and, ultimately, unnecessary remediation. The Government have been clear in their view that an EWS1 form should not be required for buildings below 18 metres in height.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way again. What is his advice to leaseholders who believe that they have been wrongly charged for unnecessary works, or works that are not actually required in the way that he is describing? Many residents have raised concerns with me about what has been put forward and whether it was actually required. What should they do? What is the Minister’s practical advice?

Stuart Andrew: My door is always open, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise specific cases with me I would be more than happy to take them up and make sure that we get relevant answers for him.
Freeholders and landlords should not be commissioning costly remediation in buildings below 11 metres except in exceptional circumstances, which is where there is no more proportionate option available. They certainly should not be pointing to old EWS assessments to justify those costs. Given the small number of buildings involved, a blanket legislative intervention bringing hundreds of thousands more buildings into scope to deal with an issue affecting just a handful of buildings would be entirely disproportionate. The Government amendments therefore reinstate the definition of “relevant building” as one that is at least 11 metres, or five storeys in height, and contains at least two dwellings.

Hilary Benn: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. In respect of the point that he has just made, have the Government made an estimate of the number of residential buildings below 11 metres where there may be a case for extensive remediation works? I am just trying to follow the logic of the Government’s position. They say that there is not really a problem with buildings below 11 metres, which is why they do want to include them, but if there is not a problem, surely the Government would not be having to do much in respect of those buildings, because there are very few of them—so the Minister says.

Stuart Andrew: The issue is the proportionate measures that can be made in those buildings to ensure that they are safe. We want to make sure that we get this right, and we will be continuing to look at all of these. If the building safety regulator assesses that further work needs to be done, or that the Government need to look at what needs to be done, we will absolutely make sure that we do that, and I make that commitment to the House.

Daisy Cooper: On that specific point, I am grateful that the Minister has said that he will look at this issue of buildings below 11 metres. As part of that, will he commit to focus especially on those buildings where there are many vulnerable residents—whether that is care homes, shelter buildings or perhaps even schools where there are children with special educational needs or disabilities who might find it harder to escape buildings? Will he commit to look specifically through that lens of risk to the vulnerable adults in those buildings?

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her engagement, too. She raised this important point with me yesterday. Yes, absolutely, we have officials looking at that, but also, as I have said, the Building Safety Regulator will be assessing buildings such as those. If this becomes an area that needs further consideration, we will look at what measures need to be introduced.

Clive Betts: Will the Minister give way?

Stuart Andrew: I will take one more intervention and then I must progress.

Clive Betts: I thank the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous, but these are important and quite complicated issues. There is a general welcome for the Government’s attempts to take a more proportionate approach and for moving away, albeit over a period of time, from EWS1 forms to PAS 9980, which can cover whole blocks rather than individual properties. The two questions that the Select Committee has not had answers  to are, first, whether the Government will look at making the building regulator responsible for deciding which blocks need this new assessment rather than the building owners, who might have a particular interest in saying no; and, secondly, whether he will ensure that the professional indemnity insurance scheme also applies to assessors on the PAS 9980 assessments as well as to those on the EWS1 forms?

Stuart Andrew: I know that the Department has been considering much of the Select Committee’s excellent work. We have moved a long way from the initial reports, and the responses will be going back to the Committee. Yes, I will take that away with me if the hon. Gentleman will allow, and I will write to him to give him further details.
Let me move on now to collectively enfranchised and commonhold buildings. The Government’s original proposal included an exemption from the leaseholder protection provisions to leaseholder-owned buildings—those in which the leaseholders have collectively enfranchised and those which are on commonhold land.
In a collectively enfranchised building, the freehold is owned by some or all of the leaseholders, so there is no separate entity with which the costs can be shared. The leaseholders are the freeholders. The amendments made in the other place seek to apply the protections to these buildings. The Government recognise that the amendments are well intentioned and driven by a desire to protect these leaseholders, and they share these aims. However, I must emphasise to the House that these amendments will not have the intended effect of protecting leaseholders living in those buildings. Those leaseholders who have enfranchised would still have to pay—but in their capacity as owners of the freehold rather than as a leaseholder. Indeed, it could make things worse. Where some leaseholders have chosen to enfranchise and others have not, the enfranchised leaseholders would have to pay for remediation of the whole building in their capacity as owners of the freehold—including the share of remediation costs that would otherwise have been recoverable from those leaseholders who have not enfranchised, once they have paid up to any cap. That is why the Government amendments reinstate the exemption for leaseholder-owned buildings. Enfranchised buildings are eligible for the £5.1 billion building safety fund in the same way as other buildings.
The other protections that we have introduced will also apply. The recent commitment from many developers to fix their own buildings will apply equally to enfranchised buildings, and the measures and powers that we have added to the Bill to pursue and compel developers and cladding manufacturers to pay will be available. I know that Members will still be concerned about how we can protect leaseholders in leaseholder-owned buildings, which is why I am announcing today that the Government will consult on how best leaseholders in collectively enfranchised and commonhold buildings and other special cases can be protected from the costs associated with historical building safety defects. The consultation will allow the Government to understand fully the position regarding leaseholder-owned buildings with historical defects and identify whether further measures are appropriate to address specific circumstances in which leaseholders may unintentionally be exposed to disproportionate costs.

Paul Blomfield: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has, to some degree, covered the concerns that I was going to raise about those people who have exercised the right to manage. Yesterday, in a letter to us, he and the Secretary of State acknowledged that Lords amendment 117 identified a real problem. Frankly, at this stage, a consultation will give very little comfort, but could he try to assure leaseholders in that position by saying how long that consultation will be undertaken and when they might expect some conclusion?

Stuart Andrew: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point. I want to ensure that we get the consultation under way as quickly as possible. I accept that people have deeply held concerns, so we will do our best to get that done speedily, but we do need to consult. We need to get the evidence and know exactly what the picture is, in order to know how best to deal with that situation.
Lords amendment 184 inserts a new schedule 8, titled “Remediation costs under qualifying leases”. It sets out the circumstances in which costs cannot be passed on to leaseholders. The Government’s original proposals set out that where the building owner is, or is linked to, the developer or can afford to meet the costs in full, they would be prevented from passing costs on to leaseholders.
It is worth stressing just how wide these proposed protections are. If a building is still linked to the developer, that building owner and the landlord will be liable for the costs associated with non-cladding defects and their leaseholders will pay nothing. If the building owner or landlord is not linked to the developer, but has the wealth to meet the costs in full, their leaseholders will pay nothing. If a leaseholder property is valued at less than £175,000, or £325,000 in London, the leaseholder will pay nothing and, if the leaseholder has already met interim costs that exceed the contributions cap, they will pay nothing.
Based on that “waterfall”, the Government’s assessment is that the vast majority of leaseholders would pay less than the caps and many would pay nothing at all. However, it is important to remember that not all landlords are evil. Where the building owner or landlord is not at fault, where they have no link to the developer who created those defects and they do not have the wealth to meet the remediation costs in full, and only in that situation, we propose that leaseholder contributions towards non-cladding defects can be recovered, subject to the fixed caps.

Rushanara Ali: I apologise for not being able to be here since the beginning of the debate as I was at the rally with leaseholders.
Does the Minister agree that there is a conflict of interest issue? As I have seen in my constituency, which has many cladded buildings, it is often freeholders who do the assessments, which therefore do not have the necessary independence or checks and balances. Does he agree that it is worth having a building works agency, as Labour proposes, with independent assessors to do the work, so that residents can have confidence that there will be no more attempts to find ways to pass on the costs to leaseholders? We have had three fires in my borough since Grenfell, and it is vital that freeholders take the responsibility rather than passing on the bill.

Stuart Andrew: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Freeholders must ensure that their buildings are safe. We will have responsible people associated with each of those buildings to ensure that all the regulations are adhered to. The Building Safety Regulator will also ensure that buildings are safe. As ever, we want to learn as this process goes on, and I would be keen to continue to have dialogue with her as we progress with this.

Ben Spencer: My hon. Friend is being very kind with his time. On the point about the building cost thresholds, he will know that the London median house price is £515,000, but in Runnymede and Weybridge it is £475,000. In fact, house prices in my constituency are higher than or equal to those in 25 London constituencies. Many of my constituents will be adversely affected but will not get the same benefit as those in London, despite having equivalent or higher house prices. As he reviews the policy going forward, will he consider looking at house prices on a regional basis, as opposed to inside London versus outside London, which negatively affects constituents such as mine?

Stuart Andrew: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He will be aware that we are trying to avoid any leaseholders having any contributions to make at all. The first port of call will always be the people who developed the building in the first place. I hope to come on a bit later to the valuation of properties, which might address some of his points.
Importantly, we proposed that those leaseholder contributions be subject to a firm cap and that costs paid out in the past five years count against the caps. The Government originally proposed that leaseholders’ contributions be capped at £10,000, or £15,000 in Greater London, and we believe that creates a fair balance. It is the Government’s assessment that the vast majority of leaseholders would pay less than the caps, and many would pay nothing at all. None the less, the other place voted to reduce leaseholders’ capped contributions to zero. I am afraid the Government cannot accept the amendments.
We believe that in those circumstances, setting the cap on leaseholder contributions to zero is not a proportionate approach. Placing the entire burden on freeholders and landlords in circumstances where they are not at fault and are not wealthy will only increase the risk that remediation that is needed to ensure that residents are safe will not happen at all. We are therefore restoring the caps at £10,000 outside London and £15,000 in London, as originally proposed, and have made a small number of other technical improvements to those measures.

Mike Penning: I welcome the Minister to his position on this very interesting Bill that is going back and forth. The one group of people who took the money right at the start for the developers and builders was the insurance companies. The developers could not have built those properties without having the legal protection of insurance. Sadly, the Minister has not mentioned the insurance companies once in this situation, but that is where the burden should fall, instead of on the leaseholders. Does he agree?

Stuart Andrew: Actually, the responsibility lies with those who built the building defectively in the first place. They are the ones we are chasing. I pay tribute—   I should have said this right at the beginning—to officials in the Department, who have worked incredibly hard to get this new package of measures from the developers in place. It has not been an easy task, but they have done it with great passion and have been incredibly successful. As I say, it is the developers who should be paying, and we expect a minimal number of leaseholders to pay.

Royston Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know he wants to get on. On insurance, which has been my bugbear as well, it is not just that many of the insurance companies insured the development beforehand, and therefore provided a warranty of sorts, but that since then they have increased premiums on leaseholders, sometimes by more than 1,000%. Does he have something to say about that particular activity from insurance companies?

Stuart Andrew: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Financial Conduct Authority to look at that, because it is an area of great concern. I hope to update the House on further progress in the near future.
Turning to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 6, the Government have accepted the principle of the Lords amendment, requiring the Building Safety Regulator to conduct a series of safety reviews. We believe the new version provides clearer drafting and a more practical and pragmatic approach. The amendment inserts a new clause that increases the time available to the regulator from two years to three, reflecting the time needed for the regulator to develop the capacity to carry out those reviews alongside all its other functions.
The new clause aligns the reviews with building regulations to address safety issues, focusing on the costs and benefits of measures to improve safety. It sets specific priorities for the regulator to review while fulfilling its duty under clause 5 to keep,
“the safety of people in or about buildings”,
under review. The scope remains true to the intent of the original amendment, and it is important to assure hon. Members that the reviews will be conducted within the principle of proportionality placed on the operation of the regulator’s building functions by this Bill.
I now turn to a number of technical improvements that the Government are proposing to Lords amendments. Lords amendment 93 inserted a new clause called “Remediation of certain defects”, which provides an overview of the leaseholder protection measures contained within the Bill. Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 93 make two minor and technical amendments to that new clause.
The first amendment, to leave out “under qualifying leases” at line 12, is a minor and technical amendment to reflect that some of the protections in schedule 8 apply to leases that are not qualifying leases. When the landlord is, or is linked to, the developer they will not be able to pass costs on to any leaseholders in the building, including non-qualifying leaseholders. The second amendment, at line 23, is a minor and technical drafting change.
I now turn briefly to Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 93 regarding trusts. I must take this opportunity to pass on my appreciation to the noble Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra,  who raised this matter through their work in the other place. I acknowledge the concerns raised about the use of trusts and how their misuse could undermine vital leaseholder protection provisions. The Building Safety Minister, my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh, committed on Report in the other place to consider this further. Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) amend clause 120 to ensure that a body corporate or a partnership can be regarded as associated with another if they are the beneficiary of a trust that has an interest in a relevant building. In other words, the existence of a trust will not enable a group of companies to evade their responsibilities under the leaseholder protections. We have also inserted wording into clause 130 so that beneficiaries of trusts can be considered for building liability orders—that is, can be required by the High Court to contribute to remediation. The remaining amendments to Lords amendments 107, 108 and 190 are consequential to the amendments I have described.
Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 78 is consequential on Lords amendment 59, which removes a reference to the building safety charge as a separate charge. Previously, the ongoing costs of the new regime were to be charged via a stand-alone building safety charge. We are changing this so that the building safety costs are an identifiable part of the service charge. This will keep costs transparent while allowing them to operate as part of the service charge system, which is familiar both to landlords and leaseholders. The amendment responds to the feedback that we have received from leaseholder groups. We recognise the concerns that the building safety charge as envisaged in the previous drafting of the Bill would have created additional bureaucracy for landlords and leaseholders alike, and we have listened to those concerns. In making this change, we have simplified how the costs of the new regime are managed. The service charge regime is well established, and the amendment reduces the bureaucracy of an entirely separate mechanism for building owners and leaseholders.
Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 145 is a minor correction to reflect that there is no longer a regulation-making power at paragraph 4 of schedule 8. The Government amendments to Lords amendment 184 are minor and technical amendments clarifying that no service charge is payable under a qualifying lease where the landlord at the qualifying time was responsible for the defect.
Again, I thank all Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), for their work on this. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) for the very many helpful discussions that we have had recently.

Jonathan Edwards: We are discussing measures that the Government are introducing for England only. I know the Minister cannot answer for the Welsh Government, but what discussions has his Department had with them about policy in Wales? Does he expect the Welsh Government to follow the measures that he is introducing today for England, and does he have a timeframe for when such policy might be announced?

Stuart Andrew: The hon. Gentleman is right that it would not be appropriate for me to speak on behalf of the Welsh Government, and I do not think they would like that either. What is important is that all buildings across the United Kingdom are safe. I hope that we will all learn from each other to ensure that we achieve that objective, because the safety of the residents is paramount in this instance.
I hope that hon. Members will welcome all the changes that the Government have made, which I firmly believe address the key concerns that have been raised in Parliament. It is in all our interests to see this crucial Bill become law as quickly as possible. I hope that all hon. Members across the House will support the Government amendments, and look forward to seeing the Bill implemented so that we can get these buildings into a safe position and give the residents the reassurance that they need.

Rosie Winterton: I call shadow Minister Matthew Pennycook.

Matthew Pennycook: This Bill has been a long time in gestation. First published in July 2020, it was subject to extensive pre-legislative scrutiny and was examined in exhaustive detail over five long weeks in Committee in the autumn of last year. Then, in January this year, the Government accepted that the approach they had taken to the building safety crisis over a period of more than four years following the Grenfell fire had not worked, and they announced that it would change. We raised a series of questions and concerns about what that change of approach would mean in practice, but we welcomed the fact that it had finally happened. It is of course right that we seek to ensure that those who profited from the sale of unsafe buildings and construction products pay their fair share when it comes to putting things right, that every developer and freeholder who can shoulders the financial burden of fixing their own buildings, that we restore common sense and proportionality to the assessment of building safety in general, and that leaseholders are properly protected from the costs of remediating all historical cladding and non-cladding defects. Labour has urged the Government to act on all these fronts, and more, for years, and we are pleased that we are now finally making progress toward some semblance of a comprehensive solution to the building safety crisis.
However, the manner and the pace at which this already complex and technical Bill has been overhauled to reflect the Government’s belated change of heart has been deeply problematic. Large sections of the Bill have been completely rewritten on the basis of hundreds of Government amendments tabled in the other place that the noble Lords had relatively little time to consider carefully or properly scrutinise. We welcome many of those amendments, particularly the removal of the building safety charge and the abolition of building safety managers, and we also welcome the important concessions the Government made in the other place in response to Labour amendments—for example, to exempt social housing providers from the levy. But that does not detract from the fact that this is no way to make good law, and I want to put on record the Opposition’s serious misgivings about the way the Government have gone about revising the Bill. As a result of the way it has been modified, it is now, by all accounts, something of a  mess, and the five pages of complex Government amendments tabled yesterday afternoon, which again provided hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House with little time to properly consider them, do little to remedy that fact.
Nevertheless, the Opposition have always maintained that we want to see a version of the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. As such, our focus is now on ensuring that its most glaring remaining defects are addressed so that it can be passed in what remains of this Session. To that end, there are five specific issues to be considered today: the duties placed on the Building Safety Regulator with regard to reviewing safety and standards, protection for leaseholders in buildings below 11 metres in height, protection for leaseholders in enfranchised buildings, the issue of buildings held in trust, and the proposed leaseholder cap.
The first can be dealt with very quickly. As well as having the resource and capacity to perform all the complex tasks assigned to it, it is critically important that the new Building Safety Regulator within the Health and Safety Executive be clearly tasked in the early years of its operation with assessing the benefits and costs of a range of measures in relation to safety and standards. Lords amendment 6 specified four—fire suppression systems, the safety of stairways and ramps, the certification of electrical equipment, and provision for people with disabilities—and we supported it. Having maintained in the other place that the amendment was entirely unnecessary, the Government yesterday tabled an amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 6 that almost entirely mirrors its provisions. On that basis, we will support that Government amendment.
The second issue is protection for leaseholders in buildings below 11 metres in height. As I argued on Report on 19 January, 18 metres was always a crude and arbitrary threshold that not only failed to adequately reflect the complexity of fire risk but was an entirely unsound basis for determining which blameless leaseholders were and were not protected by the state from the costs of remediation. The same argument applies to the 11-metre threshold. The blameless leaseholders who are trapped living in unsafe smaller buildings deserve the same protection as those in mid and high-rise unsafe buildings. As the Earl of Lytton argued in the other place:
“There seems no good reason for height exclusion on any moral, economic, safety or practical ground.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1508.]
The Government maintain—the Minister said as much again in his remarks—that there are no systemic building safety issues with buildings under 11 metres, yet we know from the devastating incident at Richmond House in Worcester Park in 2019 just how dangerous to life defective buildings under this height threshold can be. The Government further maintain that buildings under 11 metres in height that are dangerous are few in number. I suspect that is almost certainly the case, but all the more reason, then, to provide financial support to those blameless leaseholders who find themselves living in them rather than leaving them without protection. I noted what the Minister said when he gave a commitment that the Government would review such buildings on a case-by-case basis, but it begs the question: why will the Government not act by amending the Bill to cater for the exceptional circumstances that he spoke about?

Rushanara Ali: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government do not act to safeguard such blocks, the people who live in those kinds of accommodation will find it very difficult to be insured and to get mortgages? This is a short-sighted response, when the Government could address these issues in the round.

Matthew Pennycook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it has been a consistent position of ours that we ensure that all leaseholders affected by the building safety crisis are protected irrespective of circumstance, including what height their building happens to be. For that reason, we will oppose Government amendment (a), tabled yesterday to Lords amendment 94, and seek to ensure that the Lords amendment remains unmodified.
I turn to the third issue we are considering this afternoon: enfranchised buildings. Under the Bill, enfranchised leaseholders will, in effect, be treated as freeholders when it comes to the costs of remediation. That cannot be right. Buildings that have exercised a right to collective enfranchisement, or those on commonhold land, may be few in number, but it has been the policy of successive Governments to encourage leaseholders to enfranchise and to promote the right to manage. Indeed, the Government have promised legislation in the next Session to make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to buy the freehold of their building, yet the Government have put forward no solution whatever to the issue of enfranchised buildings in the Bill as it stands, and they are seemingly content, at least until this afternoon, to see such leaseholders completely excluded from the protections enjoyed by those in buildings that remain unenfranchised. We vehemently disagree with that position. It is imperative that such leaseholders are afforded the same protection as those who do not collectively own or manage their buildings. As Lord Young put it in the other place,
“it would be perverse if the legislation before us today put enfranchised leaseholders in a worse position than leaseholders who are not enfranchised”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 2022; Vol. 820. c. 1509.]
It is essential that the service charge protections set out in schedule 8 to the Bill apply clearly to enfranchised buildings and buildings where the right to manage has been exercised, which is another reason why we cannot support Government amendment (a), tabled yesterday to Lords amendment 94, and why we will seek to divide the House on it. The Minister is right to say that pressing the amendment to a vote is not enough, and that at some point the Government will have to go further than simply accepting Lords amendment 94 or a version of it, because the Bill in its current form would not prevent resident-owned companies from making unlimited demands on leaseholders in their capacity as shareholders, to cover the costs that they would be unable to pass on via service charges if the Lords amendment, or a version of it, were to remain part of the Bill. So the Government will have to act.
I noted what the Minister said about a consultation, but I have to say that I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). It is too late in the day to consult on this matter. Four and a half years after Grenfell, the Bill needs to be amended to reflect and deal with this issue.
I turn to the fourth issue we are considering this afternoon, which is buildings held in trust. As it stands, buildings held in trust on behalf of a third-party investor,  where the landlord is a professional depository or custodian regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, or buildings owned on trust by what I can only describe as ground rent grazers—almost invariably based offshore—do not meet any of the association tests or the net wealth test in the Bill. Unless the Bill is revised to capture such trustee arrangements, they will escape the so-called waterfall system as set out in schedule 8, and the leaseholders will find themselves picking up a proportion of the costs of non-cladding remediation. The Minister is right to say that, in the other place, the Government accepted that the Bill needed to be so modified, and yesterday they tabled an amendment to Lords amendment 98 as a result.
Let me be clear that the inclusion of Lords amendment 98, as amended in the way the Government propose, would make for a better Bill than one that has no provision addressing the trustee loophole whatever. However, the Government amendment tabled yesterday afternoon has serious deficiencies, which are almost certainly the result—I make no charge against the officials involved—of the hurried timescale in which it has been drafted and tabled. Let me take the two most obvious problems with it. First, the Government amendment covers only partnerships or bodies corporate that are a beneficiary of a trust; private individuals are entirely excluded. That cannot be right, and they must be brought within the scope of these arrangements.
Secondly, the Government amendment makes no distinction whatever between types of trusts. A local authority pension fund, for example, will be liable under the waterfall system in precisely the same way as an offshore ground rent grazer. We believe that that is wrong and that the Government should think further about how they might better protect trusts where there is a clear public interest in doing so. We will not oppose Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 98, but I urge the Minister and his officials to go away and consider whether the flaws in the Government amendment as currently drafted can be rectified as the Bill progresses.
I turn to the fifth and final issue under consideration: the proposed leaseholder contribution caps. On the issue of leaseholder liability, Labour has consistently argued that all blameless leaseholders should be protected from the costs of remediating historical cladding and non-cladding defects, and associated secondary costs, irrespective of circumstance. Although we fully acknowledge that the waterfall system now set out in schedule 8 provides leaseholders with a far greater degree of protection than the Bill as originally drafted proposed, it does not protect them fully. Just as importantly, the Bill does nothing to provide redress for the countless blameless leaseholders across the country who have already been hit with huge bills and have paid out significant sums of money as a result. That is why we support Lords amendment 184, which seeks to reduce leaseholder contributions to zero, and why we call once again on the Government to think again about how leaseholders who have already paid to fix historical cladding and non-cladding defects can be provided with retrospective financial redress.
The Government’s position is that leaseholder contributions are fair in principle because they will apply only in a limited number of cases. By the Minister  for Building Safety’s own admission in the other place, leaseholders will pay only up to the cap or a proportion of the cap in a “minority of circumstances”, but that statement begs the obvious question of why the Government are so determined to force this minority of leaseholders, some of whom will be able to meet the costs of the cap whereas others will not, to pay, particularly given that the amounts raised by capped leaseholder contributions will almost certainly never cover the full costs of non-cladding remediation works in any given building, and that other sources of funding will have to plug the gap.
In responding to Lords amendment 184—or 155, as it was in the other place—the Minister for Building Safety seemed to suggest that if leaseholder contributions were set to zero in cases where there is no clear party that can pay, the full costs would be transferred back to the freeholder or the landlord. The Minister said as much in his remarks earlier, yet there is nothing on the face of the Bill that provides for that to be the case. Indeed, it is entirely unclear precisely how the funding shortfall will be made up in such cases, and the same issue arises in the case of buildings with significant numbers of buy-to-let landlords. It surely cannot be the case that the Government ultimately intend to force local authorities to carry out remediation works on this minority of buildings, so one assumes that the necessary funding shortfall will, in the end, be made up from some form of Government grant, using the funds raised by the expanded building safety levy and the residential property tax, but we cannot be certain, because the Government have not told us. This matters, because the real risk is that remediation works on such buildings simply never get done, with the leaseholders trapped in perpetuity.
Assuming that the Government believe it is critical that all unsafe buildings are remediated at pace, they need to tell us, plainly, what happens in cases where funding for historical non-cladding defects cannot be extracted from the developer or building owner, and where capped leaseholder contributions alone would not be sufficient. I hope the Minister can provide the House with some clarity on that point, because it is one of the critical unanswered questions provoked by the Government’s recent change of approach, and the Bill at present simply fails to engage with it. In such cases, when all other options have been exhausted and there is no clear party that can pay—I remind the House again that the Government themselves assert that these cases will be small in number—the Opposition believe that grant funding should be provided, because that it is the only morally justifiable solution. We want to see that backstop commitment written on the face of the Bill.
In sticking rigidly to the position that a minority of leaseholders will have to pay sums that, although capped, are still significant, to resolve a scandal that they played no part in causing, the Government are not acting equitably and will not ensure that the most vulnerable leaseholders are protected, as they claim. For that reason, we will oppose Government amendments (c) and (d), tabled yesterday to Lords amendment 184, and we will seek to divide the House on them, with a view to ensuring that all leaseholders are fully protected.
I would like to end by paying tribute to each of the noble Lords and Baronesses who worked so constructively, and on a cross-party basis, to strengthen the Bill. I also thank all the resilient and determined individuals, many  of whom have travelled to Westminster today to make their voices heard, whose unceasing campaigning has helped us to arrive at this point.
In no way does this Bill represent a comprehensive solution to the building safety crisis—not least because that will depend on a range of non-statutory Government interventions and the agreement, voluntary or otherwise, of banks and insurers—but it has been strengthened in important ways in the other place. Instead of seeking to unpick a number of those improvements, the House should vote to retain them. I urge Members on both sides of the House to join us in the Division Lobby later today to ensure that that is the case.

Peter Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way he introduced the amendments, and I thank the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who spoke in a non-party way about the matter. I pay tribute to those on both sides of the House who have been working on the Bill, often without proper recognition. Among them I include the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. Its first report on the leasehold disaster was critical to getting Government and some people outside to pay attention.
If anyone from a major media organisation is listening, I urge them to make sure that they have a housing editor who can pay attention to this issue and provide continuity. During the four or five years since Grenfell, several people have taken up the issue of the fire itself, but no one has provided the necessary continuity when it comes to television and radio programmes. Institutional memory is required if we are to understand how we got to where we are, and where we need to get to. For residential leaseholders, fair, detailed, expert housing coverage matters as much as coverage of health, economics, defence and other things. I commend to media organisations the idea of having a housing editor and a team who can help us to do our work better, because without media reflection of our efforts, we will not go as far or as fast as we ought to.
Bluntly, the thinking in the Treasury has been the cause of much of the delay. The tragic deaths at Grenfell, where over 70 people died unnecessarily, were a spur to action. For too long, however, people said, “Look at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; this is all its fault.” Most of the blocks affected are not in Chelsea or in Conservative-controlled areas, so we all have a responsibility to accept that we got things wrong.
What was needed to get this right? It was best put by Ted Baillieu in Victoria, Australia, who said that it was necessary to find the problems, fix the problems and fund the problems, and then get after the people who are responsible. If we had done that, for the last four years many more innocent residential leaseholders would have been able to live in homes that they knew to be safe and saleable, and we would be many steps further forward.
I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities want to make sure that no block is left unremediated—in plain English, to make sure that every block is made safe—and then go after the money, but the Treasury is blocking that.
I put this question to my hon. Friend the Minister. Who will take claims against those other than the developers—the architects, the surveyors, the component manufacturers, the people who set the building standards and the people who did building control, whether in the public or private sector—who were involved? I am not saying that they are all responsible, but some are. In any other field, lawyers would be coming forward with a class action to put them all in the dock and claim from them the costs that would otherwise fall on innocent residential leaseholders.
For those who are new to this, I repeat that the only people who are totally innocent—the only people who do not own a single brick in the building—are the residential leaseholders, and yet they are being left with some of the costs. If it comes to Divisions, I will vote in a non-party way to try to keep the intentions of the House of Lords going on most of the issues.
I do welcome and accept what the Minister said about extending to three years the responsibilities of the Building Safety Regulator. That makes sense, given the timescale, but what is controversial is leaving residential leaseholders with some of the costs. I draw the House’s attention to the fire at Gibson Court in Woking in 2011. Six years later, those responsible were fined more than £300,000 because their fire protection work had been clearly inadequate. In that case, part of reason for the spread of the fire was the fact that lofts went right across the buildings.
I also draw the House’s attention to the point that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made about the fire in 2019 at Worcester Park, where 23 other blocks had to be made safe because one block went up in smoke in 11 minutes. If a fire can spread so far in that many minutes, the idea that it could be contained within one flat is not realistic; those who are vulnerable would have no chance of getting out safely.
I hope that this Bill has the power, under secondary legislation, to extend provisions on remediation costs to buildings below 11 metres, especially for the vulnerable, although I would prefer it to go as far as the House of Lords wanted, so that leaseholders do not have to pay.
Remember that a few years back, Government appeared to be thinking that costs of £15 billion could fall on these residential leaseholders, who did not have the money. I am not talking about people who live in big, expensive, multi-million-pound apartments looking out over the Thames. I ought, by the way, to declare an interest, as I have a small flat in Worthing, which does not even look out over the sea. Six of us bought the freehold and we have had no problems with this, or even with managing agents or insurance companies. I will be buying a leasehold on another property in London in time, and I hope it will not be affected either. I put that on the record, just in case someone says that I am talking from self-interest.
I am speaking in the interest of people who are poorer than I am, who live in homes that are less valuable than mine, and who have been lumbered with all the disadvantages of being a residential leaseholder—and now with this fire safety defect issue as well.
I reinforce what other hon. Members have said about insurance. Premiums are unreasonably high; I hope that the Competition and Markets Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority will quickly produce a report, and that publicity will make insurance companies bring  rates down to market rates—that is to say, rates that are justified by the risk, not by what the market can be made to pay in a crisis. I also hope that all commissions, rebates and douceurs—sweeteners—paid by brokers or insurance companies and received by managing agents or landlords are disclosed. That ought to be out in the open.
For too long, too many people have got rich on the back of residential leaseholders. There are many more things that I would like to say, but I suspect that, given the amount of interest in the subject, I ought to stop now. As well as thanking those from both sides of the House who have worked on this, I thank the National Leasehold Campaign. Without it, we would not have had Victoria Derbyshire’s interest, which has been important. I thank the cladding groups, in all their manifestations. At great expense to themselves, and having given up some of their other responsibilities, they have brought these issues to the attention of Parliament.
I also thank officials in the Department, because after a very slow start, a group of people has been brought together to support Ministers in their legitimate aim of making sure that those who are responsible pay, and those who are not responsible do not have to.

Clive Betts: It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. I thank the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), for his kind words about the Select Committee. He certainly encouraged and prodded us to do the first report on leasehold reform. It was, as he said, a first step towards what we hope will eventually be much more significant reform, which I think the Government are committed to.
Since the tragedy of Grenfell, the Select Committee has produced five reports. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is in his place, because he has been with us right the way through those reports, all of which were agreed unanimously by the Select Committee. We have repeated over and over again that leaseholders who are not responsible should not have to pay, and neither should social housing tenants; they are no more responsible, and the two should be seen together and treated equally.
I am pleased with what the Minister said today. I hope it was not just a way to get the debate over with, without pushing away too many difficult questions, and that he is still prepared to look at broadening the scope of the Government’s offer to leaseholders and to social housing landlords and tenants. If that was a genuine offer and he is keen to work on it, that is welcome.
We clearly have come quite a long way since the first offer of a £400 million package to deal with ACM cladding. That was going to solve everything, but obviously it was not, even when the Chancellor stood up and offered in his Budget the £1 billion building safety fund and said that was going to give everything the Select Committee had asked for, which it was not and did not. We have moved on since then, so it is welcome that we have now got to a better place, although it is still not quite good enough.
I notice the Department contacted the Select Committee officers today and asked whether it was okay if it replied to two of our reports at the same time, which it was.  One of them was in March this year, and it will be a very good and quick response from the Department—we are waiting for it. The other report was in April last year. That has taken 12 months; it is supposed to take two months. That is rather a long time, Minister, and I think it does indicate that things have been grindingly slow on some of these issues. We are still talking today about matters that really could have been resolved with a bit more urgency in the past, and that is why we are still coming to the further discussions and further considerations that the Minister has promised.
This has already been outlined very clearly—in the report from the Select Committee, so we hope we are going to get responses—but why are leaseholders in buildings of below 11 metres not covered? If a building falls out by 1 cm, it is going to be the most expensive 1 cm in history for those leaseholders, who again get the full costs, rather than all the costs paid. On the cap, why do we need the cap just for non-cladding costs? That has not really been explained, and some of those leaseholders will not be able to pay even the relatively small amounts of money. Why are those leaseholders who have paid already for the work to be done excluded from any help? That really is unjustifiable. Just because some people have got on with it, often because they have had to—to make their homes safe, to be able to sell them, to move on with their lives—why are they being penalised? Again, there has been no proper explanation at all. We do need answers to those as well as to many other questions.
I completely concur with the points about the insurance industry. It is the one group of people who have actually made money out of this crisis, is it not? We asked those from the Association of British Insurers, when they came to the Select Committee, if they could tell us not merely the level of the premiums going up, which everyone can see, but how much extra compensation they have paid out to justify the increase in premiums. The answer was that they could not give us the figures, but they were having to put that into capital reserves in case claims arose in the future, when actually buildings are safer now than they were before. So this is a nonsense, and I welcome the investigation that is going to be carried out into that particular issue.
To come back to the issue of social housing, which is a big issue, the Committee has been very clear in all its reports that social housing tenants should not be treated any differently. Why? How can it be right that, in one block of flats, a flat where the leaseholder has bought their property from the social housing landlord is going to be covered by the Government scheme and that leaseholder is going to pay nothing—that is absolutely right; no rejection of that at all—and, next door, the tenant is going to see the rent they paid—so, they hoped, their flat would be improved, with maybe, if we get a better decent homes standard, a new kitchen, a new bathroom and the sort of things people look forward to as tenants—spent on building safety work? How can that possibly be right?
I go back to Grenfell itself. After Grenfell, the then Prime Minister made some telling and very appropriate comments about social housing. She said:
“Our friends and neighbours who live in social housing are not second-rate citizens. They should not have to put up with second-rate homes.”
She also said:
“For too long residents have been overlooked and ignored.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 168.]
This is one of the few issues where the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister actually agree, because the current Prime Minister said in the social housing White Paper:
“We’re levelling up this country, making it fairer for everyone—and that includes making sure social housing tenants are treated with the respect they deserve”.
Yet currently this Bill discriminates against social housing tenants. The National Housing Federation has said that up to £10 billion could be needed to remediate social housing. The G15 group of social housing landlords has said that, for their properties alone, it could be over £3 billion. Either that is money that will not be spent on building new social homes for the future as part of the Government’s commitment to get to 300,000 homes a year, or it will be money that is not used to upgrade and improve the social housing itself. That cannot be right, and I hope at some point the Minister will confirm not merely that the Government are considering it, but that they do accept the principle that social housing and social housing tenants should be treated equally and fairly—otherwise, what was the point of the then Prime Minister’s comments after Grenfell about fairer treatment?

Rushanara Ali: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government do not invest in improving social housing, there is a real risk that some of that housing could become unsafe and could create fire risks, so it is incredibly short-sighted to divert funds from investing in improving social housing? I have seen that at first hand in my own constituency and how that can create risk.

Clive Betts: Absolutely. It is important that the money is available to make sure that all buildings are safe, that everyone is safe in their home, whether they be a leaseholder or a social housing tenant, and that the money provided to make those buildings safe comes from the various funds the Government have identified, and is paid fairly and equally to blocks, whether they are in the private sector or the social housing sector. I hope the Government will listen to that view, which has been expressed by the NatFed and the Local Government Association, to which I am grateful for helping with my amendments today. Just to declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and very proud to be so, and I think its campaign, along with the NatFed’s on this issue, is fundamentally right.

Mike Penning: What an awful long way we have come with this Bill. On the previous Bill, the Fire Safety Bill, we were told categorically that that was not the right vehicle for the sorts of remedial help people needed in all our constituencies and that this was the Bill. To be fair to the Minister and his civil servants, there has been huge movement—huge movement—compared with where we were when there was considerable unrest on the Conservative side of the House as well as around the House. One of the reasons this Bill has been changed so much is that there was general unrest across the Floor of the House as to what the Bill was actually saying and doing. Can I pay tribute to my colleagues on this side of the House? With a majority of this size, the Government could have ignored us, but they could not because there was too much unrest on this side of the House and the campaigning went on. I want to pay tribute to my colleagues on that point.
Is the Bill perfect? No, it is not going to be perfect. But do we need this Bill on the statute book in this Session? Yes, we do. That is why I will personally be supporting all the measures, and not voting for any of the amendments to send it back to the other place. I think a lot of the work can be done through secondary legislation. The Minister has indicated that. More work could be done, particularly in my opinion—I have said this on Report and Third Reading, and the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), has touched on it, as have all of my colleagues here—with the insurance companies. The Father of the House cited how all the professional bodies that were responsible for building these properties—all of them—were insured, yet the insurance companies have got off scot-free.
I know that those in the Department will say—I have said this before, but let me just repeat it—that it would be very difficult to get the insurance companies to retrospectively pay for this work. That is what they said about mesothelioma, where companies had gone bust and people were dying and suffering from that horrible asbestos disease, but the Government actually brought the legislation forward so that we took a levy from the insurance companies to cover those missing employers, and we could do it with the missing companies. We could do it if we wanted to really do it, and I hope—I am going to go on and on to everyone in this House—that this can be done. Look at the way the Department for Work and Pensions did that Bill. I know a lot about it because I took it through the House, so I am slightly biased. It can be done.
I want to pause for a second, and I declare an interest as a former firefighter. I have nothing but admiration for our firefighters and emergency services who went into Grenfell, when others were quite understandably coming in the other direction. They saw things they never dreamed they would see in their careers. We do not want to see that again, but fires do recur, and our emergency services do a fantastic job. I hope that they are getting the psychiatric support for what some of those sights will have created in their lives. That will affect their lives going forward, and I have asked this question before of several Ministers.
However, the key to this Bill today is that we get it on the statute book. We can do more work through secondary legislation. I think it is absolutely imperative for our constituents that we get it on the book today, so that the other House listens to us and we get this on the statute book before the Queen’s Speech.

Hilary Benn: Like many Members have already done, I begin by acknowledging the progress that the Government have made. I think the House would like to thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing for effecting the transformation from the laissez-fair approach that the Government took previously to a really hands-on approach now—I also pay tribute to the civil servants for the work they have obviously done advising Ministers—and for asking themselves, “What are all the levers we can pull and the legislation we can enact to force people to live up to their responsibility?” I also thank Members on both sides of the House—it has been a team effort—but echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) that, given the Government majority, dissent on the Conservative Back Benches has been really important in getting us to this  point. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith).
The reason above all others that we have got to this point, however, is the leaseholders’ refusal to give up. They looked at the situation they found themselves in through no fault of their own and basically said, “We’re not having it, because it’s not fair.” The House now acknowledges that and recognises it, so we should, above all, applaud their determination and persistence and that of all the cladding groups, including the Leeds Cladding Scandal group in my constituency, where, like many speakers today, I have constituents who are affected. It shows what can be done if people do not give up, which is a really important life lesson.
Having said that, our constituents have lived with years of uncertainty and it is not quite over yet—a point to which I shall return. Reference was made to a video of one of the fires. We all saw what happened at Grenfell, but there was also the fire at The Cube student accommodation in Bolton, and we saw how quickly it went up. I think the official report said, in effect, “The building did not perform according to expectations”. If that is not understatement, I do not know what is. The truth is that we are dealing with a load of buildings that were badly built and unsafe, and people got away with it for far too long. Let us try to put ourselves in the position of those who live in those buildings. Never mind the fear of a bill arriving which they have no hope of paying; there are the waking watch costs, the insurance, the uncertainty, the inability to get on with their life or to sell, and going to bed every night thinking, “Well, if there were a fire, would I get out if the building went up in 11 minutes?” It is a scandalous position that people have been put in through no fault of their own.
I have a few brief points to make. The first is that I stick to the principle that I and many other Members have advocated from the start, which is that leaseholders, because they are not responsible, should not have to pay anything. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who spoke so clearly a little earlier, was absolutely right when he said that they should not have to pay. A cap is better than an uncapped bill, but why should they have to pay anything at all?
Secondly, we have discussed the position of buildings under 11 metres this afternoon, and I think the local case for including them is extremely strong. Replying to interventions, the Minister for Housing said that he is prepared to look at them on a case-by-case basis, but it seems to me that he could do that even if the Government chose to include them in the scheme.
Thirdly, I seek clarification on a point my hon. Friend raised about what happens if leaseholders have already paid up to the £10,000 cap but there are further costs. What if there is a continuing need for a waking watch? If the bill is not paid, the fire service may say to leaseholders, “You’re going to have to leave the building. We’re shutting it down because you don’t have a waking watch still in place.” What happens in those circumstances? It would be scandalous if leaseholders who have already paid the £10,000, or £15,000 in London, were to suffer that for want of someone to pay the bill.
Fourth is a point that has not been raised in the debate so far, but some constituents have contacted me about it. The Government have decided to limit the  number of leaseholders who are not resident—buy-to-let landlords—who can benefit from the scheme. Morally, I do not see how anyone can argue that they are more responsible for the failings of others than residential leaseholders. Also, if a building has a lot of buy-to-let properties and the buy-to-let landlord leaseholders cannot come up with their share of the money to fix the building, that has an impact on the residential leaseholders living in the building, and the net result could be that the building does not get fixed and they continue to bear costs that they cannot bear. I say “cannot bear” because ultimately that is the reason the Government have had to move. It was a fantasy to think that leaseholders would come up with sums of money they simply do not have—ridiculous. It was never ever going to happen.
Lastly, although I paid tribute to the Government, they have created a highly complex edifice, which has been described, I think by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, as a waterfall, because lots of things have to happen in the right order for the scheme to work. I understand why the Government have done that—because they are determined to go after the people who are in fact responsible for the scandal—but it means that uncertainty will continue for our constituents while they wait for all this to work.

Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which I should have included in the list of those to be thanked. I think that representatives of the partnership and the National Leaseholders Campaign have had time to get from the rally to the Gallery, so I repeat the thanks to them. I include with them Lord Greenhalgh, who has engaged with all the voluntary groups. I can think of no better aim for a campaigning charity than saving residential leaseholders from a situation from which they could not otherwise escape.

Hilary Benn: I am delighted to echo the Father of the House. The partnership has been brilliant in its analysis of what has and has not been done, what the problems are and what the solution ought to be, and it has also been persistent.
I know the Minister will appreciate my final point, because he has worked very hard on this. Our constituents have waited long enough, with their lives on hold, and the sooner we can made all these bits work, the better. We have to enable them to wake up in the morning and think, “D’you know what? I don’t have to worry about the nightmare I’ve been living in for the last five years and I can get on with the rest of my life.” We owe it to them to bring the day they dream of around as soon as possible.

Bob Blackman: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular as chairman of the all-party group for fire safety and rescue. As I mentioned in an intervention, I have been involved in prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill from its beginning and in the various reports the Select Committee produced in the wake of the Grenfell fire. The eye-watering aspects of building  safety across this country really only came to light with that terrible tragedy at Grenfell, nearly five years ago. We have all learned a lot.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, who is new to the job and to the Bill, on the rapid progress that has been made since he was appointed. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has dramatically changed the whole approach taken in this Bill. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), is no longer in his place, but I think he recognises the dramatic changes that have taken place during the passage of the Bill through the other place.
When preparing for today’s debate, I thought of one or two ironies. The first was that the Second Reading debate was so shortened that we all got three minutes to speak, but today, although we have a reasonable amount of time to debate the issues, the business managers are encouraging us not to go on too long. That seems suitably ironic.
There are several issues to address. I thank the Minister for making it clear that this will not be the end of the process. Secondary legislation will come along on the back of the Bill, and that will be the detail that really matters to the people we represent—the leaseholders, who are the one party in all of this who are completely innocent and should not be penalised in any way, shape or form. It is a contradiction that we are asking leaseholders to make a contribution to fire safety costs and cladding remediation for which they have no responsibility.
I welcome the cap, but I do not see why that cap has been set at a particular figure. Many of the people we are talking about are not wealthy. They may have bought their leases a long time ago, and they are often living on fixed incomes and have no disposable income to put towards the costs, because they are paying the other bills for their properties. They are not able to stump up huge amounts of cash. As has been said, many of those people have been presented with eye-watering bills, such as £250,000 or more, to fix fire safety issues that are definitely not their fault, are clearly the responsibility of the developer in the first place and should have been put right since.
Also in preparation for this debate, I had a look at the Select Committee’s first report on prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill—the Chairman of the Committee may recall it. If the Government had accepted our proposed changes, we probably would not be here today discussing Lords amendments. Almost all the proposals in our report are now in the revised Bill. That is a significant change and demonstrates that when we are dealing with issues of such a technical nature, prelegislative scrutiny is the right way forward. I commend its use to Ministers in the future.
I have a couple of points to make about where we are now, to put them on the record so that we can get through this phase in the secondary legislation. I would like clarity from the Minister on the position of housing associations when pursuing developers who have developed social housing that is clearly not fit for purpose.

Mike Penning: Go for the insurers.

Bob Blackman: I agree with my right hon. Friend, but let us make it clear that it should not be housing associations paying for the costs of remediation—it  should be the developers who did the work in the first place, under instruction. If the developers are no longer in business or have retired, will housing associations have access to the building safety fund? That will be important, because—as Opposition Members have said—the cost will fall on those paying rent in housing association properties, and that is unfair.
Will the Minister make sure that proper protection is given to the affordable homes programme? Otherwise we will not get the new properties developed that we all want to see to enable more social rented accommodation in this country.
One change in the Bill is that from 18 metres in height to 11 metres. In reality, the lower height properties do not have the compartmentalisation that high-rise flats have. As a result, there is a greater inherent fire risk in lower level designs. If a fire breaks out in one of those units, it is likely to spread rapidly across a broader range of properties. That is a serious fire risk and it needs to be remediated. I welcome the move from 18 metres to 11 metres, but it does not design out the original problem. We need to make it clear in the future that designing out such risks has to be paramount.
Another issue is disabled access. One concern is that when disabled people have to leave a property to flee a fire, disabled access is not always available. That has to be taken into consideration. From my reading of the Bill, that does not appear to have been given proper consideration and we need to look at it in the secondary legislation.
Since Grenfell and the publication of the original draft Bill, a raft of new high-density, multi-storey blocks of flats have been erected. Most of them now need fire remediation. I find it bizarre that developers would ignore all the suggestions of what needed to be done, but they have. We had an example earlier this year of a developer putting in a planning application for a 44-storey tower block in east London with only one stairway. It was outrageous, but it was only the intervention of the fire brigade and local residents that prevented that planning application from being approved.
Another issue is the commonhold versus leasehold model. I believe that more people should exercise common- hold, because I want to see more people enfranchised. The Bill appears to suggest that they would be penalised for doing so, but that cannot be right and the Minister needs to correct that.
I shall mention two other issues briefly. What happens to overseas ownership of buildings? Will we pursue those people to the nth degree or will they get away scot-free? My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) referred to the insurance companies. To me, they have not so far put their minds to the problem.
The Bill is vastly improved compared with when it left this place. I will support it wholeheartedly today on the basis that we will not draw a line under it and that will be the end of it; secondary legislation will be required to amend it further. The evidence that was presented to the Select Committee suggested that we still do not know exactly how many buildings need fire remediation, how many need cladding remediation, and what the cost of that work will be. Until we have that data, we will not be in a position to say what the total cost will be to the Treasury and the Department, and how it will be funded.

Daisy Cooper: I declare an interest as I am a vice-chair of the Local Government Association. I add my voice to those who have paid tribute to the extraordinary building safety campaigners who have shared their stories, put this issue on the national agenda and shamed the Government into several significant concessions. We are in a better place than we have been over the past couple of years, but the situation is still not good enough. There have been, from the beginning of the debate, a very few principles that the Government should have followed—that homes should be fixed as quickly as possible, that the innocent should not have to pay for the mistakes of the guilty, and that the Government should use their weight to go after those responsible. It is a sorry state of affairs that those principles have not been upheld two pieces of legislation later.
On Lords amendment 184, many of us are in agreement that innocent leaseholders should not have to pay a penny, end of. But the costs cap undermines that principle. Two years ago, when I tried to introduce that principle for the first time in the Fire Safety Bill I was told time and again by Ministers in Committee that it was not the right place, or that it would not work as intended. If we ever needed confirmation that that is code for “we don’t want to do it”, we get that from this Bill.
By arguing for the costs cap, the Government are opening themselves up to legal challenge. It cannot be fair, or in keeping with natural justice, that in some cases the single determinant of whether someone has to pay £10,000 or £15,000—and someone else does not—is the arbitrary fact of whether the Government can find another party to carry the can.
The Government have said that by their calculations the vast majority of leaseholders would not have to pay, so I would like the Minister to respond to these questions in his remarks. He says the vast majority. How many? Where is the Government assessment? Will he publish it and put it in the Library? Where is the web page for every leaseholder to find out whether they will be in the camp that might have to pay?
Linked to that issue is the flawed valuation system. If the system of caps goes ahead as the Government would wish, leaseholders are desperately worried about the potential for unfairness in meeting the thresholds. The valuation of properties could leave one flat liable for £10,000 or even £15,000, while an identical flat in the same block could be exempt. I was grateful that in our meeting yesterday the Minister said that his officials would look at this issue and work to find a solution, but will he commit today to say that he will launch a consultation on this specific issue as well? I believe the valuation method is flawed and will open up the Government to legal challenge.
Then we have the issue of leaseholders who have become freeholders. I agree with many of the other comments that have been made, including by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). We are in a better position, but it is simply not good enough. The Government have said they might open this up for consultation, but after two pieces of legislation and two years of scrutinising legislation, that is really not good enough.
Then we have those who are living in buildings below 11 metres. I was grateful that in his opening remarks the Minister said he would be looking at this issue. I was  grateful again that he provided an assurance to me that he would be looking at the vulnerability of residents as part of that particular assessment. Will there be a formal consultation? Can he say when it will start, how long it will take and what basis the outcomes of the consultation will have?
Finally, on social housing, again it cannot be right, as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, that this is effectively a form of discrimination. It is really disappointing that social housing tenants, who are at the blunt edge of feeling the crippling cost of living crisis, will probably see their rents and service charges raised to pay for the shoddy workmanship of unscrupulous developers. I ask the Minister to provide another assurance today that that issue will be looked at again.
We all recognise that we are in a much better position now than we have been over the past couple of years, but so many questions still remain. Not only is there going to be a slew of secondary legislation, but how many leaseholders will have to pay? How do they find out if it is one of them? How will valuation disputes be resolved? On the freeholders who have become leaseholders, where are the details of that consultation? For those living in apartments below 11 metres, where are the details on that? For social homes, how many families will not be given a new home to live in because associations and councils will have to spend their money remediating rather than building new homes?
I have to say that after five years since Grenfell and two pieces of legislation, this is a really shabby Bill. It is a very shameful state of affairs that so many issues have not been addressed. I know the Department is under new management and I know they have taken a new approach to the Bill, but the way it has been forced through the House with so little time for scrutiny is really shameful. I hope the Government listen to my points, which have been made on all sides of the House, and ensure that after the next Queen’s Speech this kind of performance is not repeated.

Stephen McPartland: It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. I am very grateful to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the great work they have done since they have taken up their roles in working with us to get to a position where the Government accept that leaseholders are the innocent victims who are not responsible and should not have to pay.
I will come on to the waterfall in a few moments, but I want to pay tribute to a number of cladding groups: UK Cladding Action Group; End our Cladding Scandal, Leasehold Knowledge Partnership; Cladiator groups up and down the country; the millions of leaseholders who have put their lives on hold; and a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the House, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) who helped me coin the McPartland-Smith amendment all that time ago, which we both found very humbling. We were very pleased that we were able to help to move this process forward and give leaseholders hope.
We have gone from being offered £400 million to £9.2 billion. The Government are still negotiating, and were talking to me and other Conservative colleagues this morning. The Minister himself said from the Dispatch Box during the debate that for leaseholders in properties  under 11 metres, issues in those buildings will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. It is clear that the Government have listened. It is clear that the Government are trying to work with us and are trying to find solutions. I accept —we all accept—that we did not want to be in this place. The Government themselves want to fix the problems.
We need to reintroduce some proportionality into the debate. We need to ensure that leaseholders feel that the buildings they are in are safe and are not fire risks. One thing that has disappointed me throughout is that although it has been very cross-party, we have to ensure we keep it cross-party and that we reassure people. A lot of leaseholders out there feel that they and their children lay their heads down to sleep in unsafe buildings. They have just come out of the covid pandemic where they were told to stay at home because going out was unsafe, but staying at home was unsafe. These people have severe mental health issues and financial insecurity. It is our job and our responsibility to reassure those leaseholders that we are trying to resolve this problem, that we are going to try to find a way through and that we will ensure their buildings are made safe.
That is what I want to do as the Member of Parliament for Stevenage. I want to represent the leaseholders in Monument Court in my constituency who at the moment—I will speak to the Minister about this—are being sent bills by Higgins Homes for 50% of costs. How is that even possible when we have been clear that leaseholders are not going to pay? We have Vista Tower—the iconic Sophie Bichener, my constituent, got me involved in the campaign originally, all that time ago—and even with all the measures going through, because the tower is effectively owned by trustees they may be exempt and the waterfall may pass directly on to the leaseholders. They are already getting £10 million from the building safety fund, and they need to find £5 million from leaseholders. It is going to be very, very difficult.
We have to finish the primary legislation and get the Bill through to Royal Assent so that leaseholders have some reassurance. Once the Bill has achieved Royal Assent, we need to work together to get the secondary legislation, vast quantities of which are needed to make the Bill work, right. We then need to start, over five years on from the terrible and tragic events at Grenfell, to make these buildings safe. How will we make people feel the buildings are safe? Finishing this debate in the Chamber today does not make any building safer than it was yesterday or five years ago. We need to focus on identifying those buildings and making sure they are safe. That is my priority. I will be supporting the Government today, because they have shown a massive willingness over the past few months to sit down and negotiate with us, and to do everything they can to try to ensure that leaseholders are not held responsible.
On the waterfall and the cap, we need to ensure that the waterfall works in practice so that developers are held on the hook, then freeholders and then other organisations, with leaseholders being the last resort. In my constituency, leaseholders who are affected would not pay a single penny, because the Secretary of State gave a commitment from the Dispatch Box in a previous debate that waking watch costs that had already been paid over the past five years—extended to 10 years, which we are very pleased about and did not even ask for—would contribute towards the £10,000. The reality is that the leaseholders in my constituency would not be  paying a single penny towards the cost of remediating the building. We need to find a way of ensuring that the building still gets remediated. We have gone from the issue being just cladding to the Government’s accepting both external building safety defects and internal building safety defects. We have won the campaign. Leaseholders have won. Up and down the country millions of leaseholders have won, but we must turn that victory into reality. We must ensure that those leaseholders live in protected buildings.
Obviously we would all like the cap to be at zero. However, one of the issues, which I asked the Secretary of State about only yesterday, is that there are leaseholders who cannot move, take a new job or move on with their life because they cannot sell their flat; the flats have no market value and are worthless. In response to a letter that we sent, the Secretary of State has asked the lenders whether they will provide consent to let for affected leaseholders so that they can rent out their property and move on with their life somewhere else. As we know, at the moment millions of them are trapped.
The Government are working with us all the time. Because we know that the most that any leaseholder will ever pay—technically, in theory—is £10,000, we have created value again in every single one of those properties. We have got the market moving again, because everybody knows that they will not have to face what in the case of Vista Tower is a remediation bill of £180,000 or £200,000 on a £180,000 flat. That is how far we have moved—that is the size of the victory that we have won. Leaseholders up and down the country have won, and we need to ensure that we take that victory to the next level and help them to get their buildings made safe. I am grateful to the Minister and will support him in the Lobby today.

Janet Daby: In June, it will have been five years since the devastating Grenfell fire. I did voluntary work in the community when I was in my late 20s, so I know the area well. The fire destroyed lives and tore families and communities apart; again, I offer the survivors my condolences in memory of those they lost. Since then, thousands of leaseholders have been forced to live with the anxiety of being in unsafe buildings through no fault of their own. It has to be said that although we are where we are today, the Government have acted far too slowly to put right the most serious situation. Residential leaseholders are panicking about costs that they never envisaged and are worried about who will pay for the work to remedy the situation.
The Bill has the opportunity to right those wrongs. I put on record my appreciation for all the building safety campaigners and for their work and their efforts. At the beginning of this year, the Secretary of State announced that
“leaseholders…are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 283.]
I absolutely agree. Nevertheless, I am in contact with my constituents and they are concerned that the Government’s proposals will still leave most leaseholders facing unaffordable costs. I therefore support Lords amendment 155, which reduces to zero the maximum amount that leaseholders could be liable to pay for fire remediation works, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew  Pennycook). That is important, because people who have done nothing wrong should not have to pay a penny for remediation work, for other fire safety work or for additional work that may arise.
The residents of Parkside in my constituency have endured years of uncertainty about who will pay for the work to put right the unsafe cladding on their building. My constituents, residential leaseholders, have been given a tentative commitment by Peabody, the housing provider, that the full cost for their remediation works will be met by Peabody, Ardmore and Rydon, the developers. However, the developers have not given my constituents the outright reassurance that they need; instead, they are keeping them dangling on the end of a string. My constituents desperately need to know that no additional cost will be passed on to them. It is deeply disappointing that they have not been given that reassurance.
Leaseholders who have shared ownership and socially rented residents have been left in limbo in unsafe buildings for far too long. Promises are being broken, works have yet to begin—they have been delayed and delayed—and commitments are not being met. If the families or friends of Peabody, Rydon and Ardmore were in that situation, they would want it put right. It is not fair that leaseholders and socially rented residents continue in these situations. Leaseholders cannot sell, cannot re-mortgage and cannot increase their share of ownership. They cannot decide to extend their family, because they will end up in an overcrowded situation. For Parkside, there is still no policy for sub-renting. Furthermore, the building is vulnerable to the risk of fire.
My constituents need to know the timeframe for when remediation work will begin and end. They need reassurances that they will not be paying for anything. They need to be treated with the utmost respect and consideration. I ask the Government what they will do to follow through, ensure that there is a time cap on when remediation work begins and ends, and ensure that leaseholders and socially rented residents are treated with the utmost respect when remediation work takes place. Every decision needs them at the forefront. After all, as we have already heard, it is they who are vulnerable. They are the victims and they need to be protected.
I urge the Government to accept the Opposition amendments and always to put the residential leaseholders and socially rented residents in this situation first.

Royston Smith: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Department for what they have done to get us to this stage. I also pay tribute to the cladding groups, which have acted with great integrity and determination. If they are not completely content today, at least they are in a much better place than they were during the passage of the Fire Safety Bill.
That Bill now seems quite a long time ago, but that is nothing compared with how long it has felt for the leaseholders who are still caught up in this awful scandal. We were promised at the time that the Building Safety Bill would deal with the issues of leaseholders having to pay. It seems that the Government have been as good as their word and have made sure that at least leaseholders will not be held responsible—we all know that they are  the only people in the entire situation who are not responsible. I was cynical when the Government said that they would deal with the issue in the Building Safety Bill, so I am particularly happy. Of course, I was not nearly as cynical as the leaseholders who were facing bills for tens of thousands of pounds and were wondering whether the issue would just be kicked down the road and into the long grass. I am pleased that at least we are now somewhere that we can all be a lot happier.
The Bill is infinitely better than what we have seen before and is definitely a move in the right direction. I have mentioned to the Minister, who has made himself available numerous times now, my concerns about buildings under 11 metres. I think it was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who said that if a building were 1 cm lower than it needed to be, that could be the most expensive centimetre in history. That is exactly the point: some of these numbers are a bit arbitrary.
What the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box has given me some comfort—enough comfort, as it happens, to support the Government today. Going forward, however, we need to make sure that we are all as good as our word. If we say that things will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, they must be. When I remove myself from the national picture, which I never intended to be involved in, and go back to representing my constituents first and foremost, although perhaps not exclusively, I hope that each time an issue comes up and I take it to the Government, they will be as accommodating as they suggest they will.
I know that everyone is talking about the insurers, which I spoke about in one of my first speeches on the Fire Safety Bill. In a way, I am really pleased that we are all fed up with talking about the insurers, because if we are all talking about them, hopefully the Government will hear us. We think—and it is not an unreasonable position—that insurers should be part of this. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, when the ABI was in front of the Committee it said that some of these premiums were helping them to put money aside in the event that they would need to pay in future. The way I look at it, they think they will have to do something anyway, so let us make sure that they are involved.

Peter Bottomley: May I suggest that it would be a good idea if the Government had a roundtable with the insurers about what informal provision they are making in case there are successful actions, and about whether they would like voluntarily to contribute, say, £4 billion to £5 billion? No residential leaseholder would then carry the cost, and the insurance company would know that it would not be chased with legal claims that were likely to succeed.

Royston Smith: That is an excellent suggestion. The Government have been very successful in talking to developers and persuading them to sign up voluntarily, and there is no reason why they could not have similar conversations with insurers.
I do not want to make a case in defence of developers. I have made the case throughout that they should pay, but we need to be a bit careful about the possible  unintended consequences of only going after them. I am pleased to note that they are taking responsibility for their own buildings, although they should have done that in the first place and they are a bit late to the party. Asking them then to remediate buildings that are not their responsibility will have all sorts of effects, not least in making them think about whether they will want to be in that particular market any more. I doubt that they will ever withdraw from the house building market, because it is their business, but if we want to ensure that we can build 300,000 homes a year—a proportion of which would, I am sure, be high-rise—we should bear in mind that some developers will now be saying, “This may not be for us in the future.”
I promised that I would not speak for too long, because we want to get through this business as quickly as possible, so I will end my comments by thanking the Minister again for what he has done and welcoming the changes that have been made. Given the Minister’s assurances today, I will be supporting the Government.

Paul Blomfield: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). I pay tribute to him and to the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) for the work that they have done in this regard.
As others have said, we have made considerable progress, but it is a disgrace that, so long after the Grenfell tragedy exposed the scandal of cladding and fire safety issues, the Government have yet to provide the comprehensive response that would address all the issues faced by the thousands of leaseholders caught up in that scandal across the country. This evolving Bill—it was clearly still evolving yesterday, with a body of new amendments tabled by the Government—and, indeed, the Secretary of State’s announcement in January were significant steps, but they still fall short of the Prime Minister’s promise—and I think we all know how much that is worth—that no leaseholders should have to pay for the remediation of problems that are not their responsibility. Moreover, there is still too much uncertainty surrounding the Government’s proposals, which in itself is frustrating progress on making buildings safe.
Let me give just one example. Mandale House, in my constituency, faces a range of problems, and has secured £3.4 million from the building safety fund towards the necessary remediation. However, that falls short of what is needed, and Mandale House is left with £7.4 million to find in order to complete the work. The building’s original developer is one of many to have gone into liquidation, so the building management are on their own. The builders who had been scheduled to carry out the remediation works have now pulled out because of the uncertainty over whether they would be paid. That leaves no foreseeable prospect of the building’s being made safe. The building management are now worried that if the money they have been granted from the building safety fund is not used promptly, it may be withdrawn. I understand that that has happened in respect of other buildings, and I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that it will not happen in this case—as well as his advice on how Mandale House leaseholders should now proceed to make their building safe.
The second point that I want to make concerns enfranchised buildings. I urge the Government to think again about Lords amendment 117, and I hope to  persuade them to do so by citing the case of Wicker Riverside, another building in my constituency, whose residents were evacuated just before Christmas 2020 because of safety concerns.
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to write to us, as he did yesterday, saying that the amendment highlights a real problem which must be addressed, but then to reject it without putting anything else in its place. I welcome his late announcement today of a consultation, but it should have been possible four years on, and after all the months of knowing that this remained a problem following the Government’s January announcement, to include an amendment that addressed the concerns and provided a solution that the Government felt was robust, along with the bundle of amendments that were added yesterday.
Let me illustrate the problem. In 2019, Wicker Riverside leaseholders took their freeholder to court after years in which building maintenance had been neglected, with the freeholder also failing to provide proof of whether the money collected through service charges had actually been spent on the building. The freeholder did not even turn up for the court case. The leaseholders then exercised their right to manage, and took over responsibility for the building. Now they are being penalised for doing so. By treating right to manage companies in the same way as institutional freeholders, the Government are excluding them from the protections that exist for other leaseholders, such as the remediation bill cap. I would like us to go further and provide zero liability for leaseholders, but the fact remains that the cap is there for some and is not there for those in Wicker Riverside. They should qualify for the same protection as others, because without it they will face unmanageable costs, and as a result the building will not be made safe.
The Government must set out their plans. If they will not accept Lords amendment 117, I respect their concerns, but the Minister needs to explain—and I hope that he will, in his closing remarks—exactly what they intend to consult on to ensure that right to manage leaseholders are protected. I hope the Minister will also give a clear guarantee that the outcome of the consultation will be that those leaseholders will have the protection that is being provided for all others.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Like many Members on both sides of the House, I welcomed the Secretary of State’s assurances to Parliament earlier this year that leaseholders
“are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 283.]
However, despite the progress that the Secretary of State and Members across the House have undoubtedly made on this issue, there are still inadequate legal protections in the Bill to ensure that residents and leaseholders do not bear the costs of a crisis that they did not cause. I therefore support Lords amendments that seek to widen the scope of the Bill, including the amendment to reduce leaseholder contributions to zero, tabled by Baroness Hayman, and the proposal for an extension of leaseholder protections to buildings of all heights, tabled by the Earl of Lytton and supported by Lord Blencathra and Lord Young. I thank Members of this House for their hard work, and I thank all the cladding campaign groups, many of whose members  are present today. I want to mention in particular Manchester Cladiators, which has supported residents throughout Greater Manchester through rain and shine in their hour of need.
Those campaigners have to keep going, because the sad reality is that many residents in my constituency still fall through the gaps in the proposals that the Secretary of State has outlined so far. Indeed, a recent survey by End our Cladding Scandal of more than 2,200 properties and buildings over 11 metres tall shows that more than 64% of leaseholders outside London and more than 83% of leaseholders in London will not be protected from the costs of non-cladding fire safety defects. The recent pledges from developers to remediate the buildings that they have built over the last 30 years sadly do not go far enough, and there is continued ambiguity about the treatment of non-cladding fire safety defects. Leaseholders in buildings that are under 11 metres remain unprotected, and there is still no funding commitment from house builders for the £4 billion required for the remediation of buildings where the developer no longer exists. As we have heard today, there also remains a huge question mark over social housing.
Further to that, we still do not know what residents who have already received devastating demands for payment should do. There is no detail at all on how to recoup any sums of money already spent by residents, as sinking funds are depleted to catastrophic levels. For example, one development in my constituency has been unable to receive support from the waking watch relief fund simply because the residents acted proactively to try to reduce the cost of their waking watch by agreeing to fund the installation of a fire alarm system. Because they did this prior to the waking watch relief fund’s cut-off date of 17 December 2020, their application to the fund was rejected. Sadly, had they waited and incurred even more waking watch costs, their application probably would have been successful. The Minister must agree that that makes no sense at all, and this is just one case.
The Secretary of State informed Parliament in January that he would pursue statutory protection for leaseholders, and that nothing would be off the table. The Bill does not give that protection, and all I ask today is that the Government support the amendments that would protect leaseholders and go some way towards providing that statutory protection that they all deserve.

Florence Eshalomi: I pay tribute to Members from right across the House for their support as this Bill has passed its various stages. I have spoken on this Bill a number of times, and it is fair to say that it is a very different piece of legislation from what was initially proposed. My constituents in Vauxhall, like others in constituencies around the country, have a basic right to live in a building that is safe, and it is a shame that it has taken nearly five years after the Grenfell tragedy for Ministers to implement this new regime. I welcome the establishment of the building regulator and the other measures in the Bill to protect lives, particularly the overdue safeguards for disabled occupants of high-rise flats; that is an issue that is not referenced enough.
Sadly, this is not just about safety; it is about who should pay for the mistakes that led to these buildings being unsafe in the first place. For too long, that has been left to innocent victims, with leaseholders and social housing providers having to pay while the developers and builders who are responsible have had their profits protected. I pay tribute to the many leaseholder campaigns and groups caught up in this, including many of my constituents in Vauxhall who have worked tirelessly on this issue for many years. Without them, we would not have reached this point.
The simple fact is that this crisis will not end until leaseholders in buildings of all heights are exempt from all fire safety costs, but that is still not the situation. Leaseholders can still have to pay up to £15,000 if funds cannot be recovered from the developer or freeholder, and leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres are entirely excluded. I place on record my support for retaining the two amendments, referenced by many Members, that were passed in the other place and that would solve these problems. Sadly, they have not been accepted by the Government. It is neither right nor fair that some leaseholders should pay while others are protected, and I hope the Minister will address that when he responds.
Lords amendment 155, tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, would abolish the unfair cap and legally protect leaseholders from all remediation costs. The Government claim that it is unnecessary to protect buildings under 11 metres, but fire does not discriminate. It does not care if a building is 11, 15 or 18 metres. I have heard from constituents in low-rise buildings in Vauxhall whose mortgage lenders still require a fire safety inspection. If that inspection finds problems, guess what? Those leaseholders in low-rise buildings will have to pay.
We must not allow the technical details of this debate to obscure the fundamental moral principle at the heart of it. Either the leaseholders are responsible for this crisis or they are not. The Government have said for many years that they are not, and I agree with that. I hope that Members will vote today for the amendments that will deliver our responsibility to fully protect leaseholders from all of the costs of the problems they did not cause. In the name of fairness and transparency, I urge all Members in this House to do that.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Minister, Stuart Andrew.

Stuart Andrew: Once again, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. They have raised lots of very serious points and questions and have clearly demonstrated a long-standing commitment not only to their constituents, but to this wider issue. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for acknowledging that this piece of legislation is vastly different from what it was, and I apologise to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for the necessity, I suppose, of the late amendments that we tabled. I hope that he agrees, however, that it is important for us to get the Bill on the statute book, and to start the process of making sure that people feel safe in their home. I was particularly struck by some of the contributions from my hon. Friends who mentioned that. I also thank  all those who have been involved in campaigns; they have shown how hard-working campaigners can make a considerable contribution on a very serious issue such as this.
I will start by responding to some of the amendments that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) tabled. I thank him and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee for their prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill and their tireless scrutiny of the Government’s response since the fire at Grenfell Tower.
Amendment (e) to Lords amendment 184 states that no
“service charge is payable under a qualifying lease”
where the landlord is either a private registered provider of social housing or a local authority. It provides that funding to meet the costs concerned would come from the levy set out in clause 57. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to protecting leaseholders, but we will not be able to support the amendment. We are clear that those responsible for creating historical building safety defects need to pay to put them right. That principle should apply equally where the party responsible is a social housing provider or local authority. Social housing providers will not be subject to provisions that stipulate that building owners and landlords with a net worth of more than £2 million per in-scope building must pay all in-scope remediation costs. They will be required to pay in full only where they were involved in developing the building.
We are also introducing an ambitious toolkit of measures to allow those directly responsible for defective work to be pursued. Those measures include an extension to the limitation period under the Defective Premises Act 1972 to 30 years; a new course of action relating to product manufacturers; and provisions removing the protections afforded by special purpose vehicles and shell companies. We have been working closely with social housing providers to help them to understand the impact of these changes.
Amendment (f) to Lords amendment 184 provides that where
“the freeholder of a building is a local authority”,
remediation costs will be paid “in the first instance” by the developer of the building and otherwise through the levy set out in clause 57. Again, the Government will not be able to accept the amendment because developers are already expected to remediate their buildings, and as we have announced, developers have signed our pledge to commit to do that. We are also introducing the ambitious toolkit that I mentioned.

Clive Betts: I entirely accept that developers have promised to do what the Minister described, but what happens when developers have gone out of business and cannot do that? Where does that leave the social housing landlord?

Stuart Andrew: I committed earlier to continuing to work on the whole area of social housing, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am keen to deliver the ambitious affordable housing programme that we have announced. I do not want to see that affected in any way, so it is in my interest to ensure that we do everything we can in this area. I commit to our doing that.

Clive Betts: Will the Minister accept an invitation to come to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in due course to investigate the areas that are not currently covered?

Stuart Andrew: How could I possibly refuse?

Bob Blackman: I apologise for taking part in a bit of a pincer movement on the Minister. He mentioned the 30-year rule; there will be developers who say, “We built under the regulations that existed over those 30 years.” Are we going to say to those developers, “No. As a result of fire safety issues, you must remediate those buildings in line with the regulations that are now in place, not those that existed 30 years ago”?

Stuart Andrew: Yes. I think I am correct in saying that. Yes, I am; I have just double-checked.
Colleagues have mentioned the 11-metre rule, and I reiterate that they should please write to my Department if they are aware of buildings under 11 metres that  are facing costly remediation. We are clear that costly remediation should not be undertaken on buildings under 11 metres, and we would be glad to look into specific cases and to question freeholders on why they are insisting on commissioning costly and unnecessary remediation works.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), let me say that we are retrospectively extending the limitation period under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act. The duty under the Act applies to those taking on work in connection with the provision of a dwelling, which includes architects and contractors whose actions have contributed towards defects, as well as developers.

Peter Bottomley: As I understand it, the difficulty is that a claim would need to be made on behalf of leaseholders by their landlord, who would insist on indemnity funding. The Minister and his advisers should get together with the Law Officers to find a practical way to ensure that claims to have a prospect of getting people to pay up, rather than people trying to resist. After Tony Pidgley sadly died, the new bosses resisted paying up to put right the defects in the Worcester Park block. That situation needs to be challenged.

Stuart Andrew: It is always wise for a Minister answering the Father of the House to take his sage advice, and of course I will speak to my officials.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) asked about valuations. I am aware there has been a discussion about how the Bill proposes to assess the value and banding of individual flats. The process set out in the Bill—further detail will be set out in regulations—takes the last price at which a flat changed hands, which will be recorded at the Land Registry, and uprates it in line with the national house price data produced by the Office for National Statistics. We recognise that this may produce a value that differs from the flat’s current market value, but we are using this approach for two specific reasons. First, it uses publicly available data and so avoids any potential for gaming the system. Secondly, it avoids the need to value a large number of flats individually, which would likely be both expensive and time-consuming and could delay the needed changes and improvements to those properties.

Daisy Cooper: Notwithstanding the Minister’s explanation that the valuation might not meet today’s market value, which he also gave to me yesterday, does  he accept that, precisely because the starting point is the most recent sale price, the owner of a flat might have to pay up to the cap to get remediation done, whereas the owner of the identical flat next door in the same block might not because the two flats sold at different times for different sums of money? That is simply not fair.

Stuart Andrew: I recognise the hon. Lady’s point, and I have committed to coming back to her after we have done further work in this area.
I am conscious that there will be a large number of Divisions in a moment, so I reiterate my thanks to hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is an incredibly important issue, and I am aware that my Department has a great responsibility to get it right. I hope that the direction set by the Secretary of State shows that we are determined to get it right for people who have been living in these worrying circumstances for too long.
Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 93.
Amendment (b) made to Lords amendment 93.
Lords amendment 93, as amended, agreed to.

Before Clause 117 - Meaning of “relevant building”

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 94.—(Stuart Andrew.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 188.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 94.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 94, as amended.—(Stuart Andrew.)

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 189.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 94, as amended, agreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made to Lords amendment 98.
Lords amendment 98, as amended, agreed to.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 107.
Lords amendment 107, as amended, agreed to.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 108.
Lords amendment 108, as amended, agreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made to Lords amendment 109.
Lords amendment 109, as amended, agreed to.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 145.
Lords amendment 145, as amended, agreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made to Lords amendment 184.
Government amendments (c) and (d) proposed to Lords amendment 184. —(Stuart Andrew.)
Question put, That the amendments be made.

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 190.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendments (c) and (d) made to Lords amendment 184.
More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 184, as amended.—(Stuart Andrew.)

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 188.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 184, as amended, agreed to.
Lords amendment 6 disagreed to.
Government (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 6.
Lords amendments 1 to 5, 7 to 92, 95 to 97, 99 to 106, 110 to 144, 146 to 183, and 185 to 191 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendments 17, 22 to 30, 103, 104, 111 to 113, 116, 120 to 127, 137 and 138.
Government amendment (a) consequential on Lords amendment 78 made.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Consideration of Lords message
[Relevant documents: Seventh Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Part 1)—Nationality, HC 764; Ninth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Part 3)—Immigration offences and enforcement, HC 885; Eleventh Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Part 5)—Modern Slavery, HC 964; Twelfth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4)—Asylum, Home Office Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders, HC 1007; Tenth Special Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill: Government Responses to the Committee’s Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh and Twelfth Reports, HC 1208; Correspondence between the Chair  of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Tom Pursglove MP, Minister for Justice and Tackling Illegal Migration, relating to Part 2 (Asylum) and Part 5 (Modern Slavery) of the Nationality and Borders Bill, HC 588, dated 17 November 2021; Correspondence between Tom Pursglove MP, Minister for Justice and Tackling Illegal Migration, and the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights relating to Part 2 (Asylum) and Part 5 (Modern Slavery) of the Nationality and Borders Bill, HC 588, dated 25 November 2021.]

Nigel Evans: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 10B and 26B. If they are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Tom Pursglove: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4G.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 5B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7C, and Government motion to disagree,
Lords amendment 8B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8C, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 53B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 53C, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 53D, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 11B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 13B, and Government motion to disagree and to insist on disagreement with Lords amendment 15.
Lords amendment 20B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 24B.
Lords amendment 25B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 26B, and Government motion to disagree.
Before I call the Minister to speak to the Lords amendments, I must inform the House that there will be a three-minute speaking limit from the outset. That will not apply to Ministers, but they will want to be brief anyway, because they will want to be popular with Back Benchers on both sides of the House.

Tom Pursglove: I will be as brief as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.
These are amendments that we have already debated, voted on and sent back to the other place, expressing our dissatisfaction with them.
The world is facing a crisis of migration. An estimated 80 million people are displaced by conflicts and instability around the world. Others seek to move in search of improved economic opportunities. Managing migration and welcoming and effectively supporting those most in need, while protecting borders and closing down the dangerous business of people smuggling is one of the difficult public policy challenges faced by any Government. That is why we have developed the new plan for immigration and this Bill, which is its legislative framework.
Amendments 8B and 8C require one or more returns agreements to be in place with a safe third country before the inadmissibility provisions in clause 15 can be brought into force. As I have said many times before, those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country they reach. The first safe country principle is widely recognised internationally.

Nadia Whittome: Under international law, anyone can claim asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 UN refugee convention. That convention makes it clear that people fleeing persecution can reach a country by irregular means if they are unable to use a valid visa. So, given that there is no legal way to come to the UK for the purpose of seeking asylum, does the Minister accept that the Government risk breaking international law?

Tom Pursglove: The point that I have consistently made is that the British Government act at all times in accordance with their international obligations, both under the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention. Again I make the point, because it bears repeating, that nobody needs to get into a small boat to reach safety. Everybody who is doing so is leaving what are inherently safe countries with fully functioning asylum systems. If people want to come to this country—we have a proud record of providing sanctuary here—they should do so through safe and legal routes. We have a proud record as a Government  of providing safe and legal routes, reflecting the fact that there are conflicts and instability in the world and we respond to that.

Clive Lewis: The 1951 UN refugee convention is quite clear, and I do not think that the Minister has answered my hon. Friend’s question. What advice has he had that the UK Government, under this legislation, will not be breaking the UN convention on the rights of refugees?

Tom Pursglove: I can only reiterate the point that, at all times, the United Kingdom Government act in accordance with their international obligations, and that is of course something that we will continue to do. Nobody in this House or elsewhere should be encouraging people to put their lives in the hands of evil criminal gangs or to make these dangerous channel crossings. We saw in November the consequences when that happens.

Andrew Mitchell: Could my hon. Friend set out for the House what the safe and legal routes are, apart from the now closed route from Syria, the route under the scheme from Afghanistan and the current Ukraine scheme?

Tom Pursglove: In terms of various schemes, as I say, we have a rich and proud history in this country of providing sanctuary to people from around the world who require it. That has included 40,000 people being sorted out through the family reunion route, 20,000 Syrians and 100,000 Hong Kongers. Also, 20,000 Afghans are eligible to come and 60,000 Ukrainians so far have had visas granted. I think that is a record that we can be very proud of as a Government, and it is one we will continue to build on in the years ahead.
The first safe country principle is a fundamental feature of the common European asylum system. I have already set out the issue of inadmissibility. By enforcing this part of the Bill, we are taking the battle to the people smugglers and showing them that their horrible business will be made unviable. For that important reason, we cannot agree to this amendment. Hon. Members have already voted against the amendment, prompting the Lords to bring a further amendment adding a time limit of five years to get agreements in place. That does not address the issues we have with this—namely, it is right to allow for removals to be sought on a case-by-case basis where appropriate.

Simon Hoare: rose—

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: rose—

Tom Pursglove: I am conscious that I need to make some progress and that time is short, but I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then to the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Hoare: A safe route would kill the evil traffic of people smuggling at a stroke. That is one way of dealing with it. I fail to see how moving people to Rwanda will in any way disrupt these people traffickers’ money-making schemes. They will just use different routes to land people on our shores. I am just not getting it, I am afraid.

Tom Pursglove: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for his considered interventions and for the thought and care that he takes in making his arguments. I respectfully disagree with him on this point. I will come on to say more about this later in my remarks, when I will be able to set out precisely why that is the case.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Further to the points that have been made, will the Minister outline what, for example, a Kurdish Syrian who is stuck in Turkey would do? Britain recognises that Turkey is oppressive to Kurds. It is further bombing Kurdish camps, as we speak, in northern Iraq and northern Syria. The majority of people on boat crossings in recent months have been Kurdish and, in particular, they have had the highest number of deaths on those dangerous boat crossings. Will he explain how those people, who often have links to the UK, provide a positive contribution to the UK and have often fought alongside British forces in Syria, can seek asylum here in Britain without the Government opening up proper, safe and legal routes in embassies and visa-processing centres across Europe? Surely that would be the answer to stopping boat crossings, not this other nonsense.

Tom Pursglove: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about allowing people to claim asylum at embassies and consulates around the world. We would find that very considerable numbers of people arrive at embassies and consulates to do so and, of course, individuals who are not granted asylum would, in all likelihood, still seek to come to the United Kingdom through small boat crossings, so I do not think that that would actually solve the issue, as he believes it would.
We also have the global resettlement scheme. We continue to look at what more we can do in that space to provide sanctuary and opportunities for people. Many views are expressed in this House about our departure from the European Union. One of the biggest safe and legal routes—the biggest, in fact—is the skills-based immigration system that we now have in this country, whereby people from around the world can apply to come to the United Kingdom. That broad eligibility is very welcome, and people from across the globe can come to the UK through that route.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tom Pursglove: I will make some progress but I will gladly give way later. The Government continue to work with international partners to ensure removals of people with no right to be in our country.
To turn to Lords amendment 4G, although the Government have accepted Lord Anderson of Ipswich’s amendments that introduced further safeguards to the deprivation of citizenship power, a further amendment was tabled by Baroness D’Souza that removed the provisions protecting the validity of deprivation orders made before the Bill’s commencement and alleging that they offered individuals no right of redress. That is simply not the case. These provisions explicitly ensured that anyone affected by the retrospective provision would still have a right of appeal, but removing them from the clause could cast doubt on the validity of deprivation orders already made before the provisions come into  effect. That poses an unacceptable threat to the UK’s safety and security, as it could enable dangerous individuals to regain their British citizenship and thus the freedom to come and go as they please in the UK. Our position on that has not changed. I make it absolutely clear that we cannot allow that unnecessary security risk to happen.

Stuart McDonald: Will the Minister explain a bit more about why he thinks that that proposal poses such a danger? All the Home Office has to do is make the same decisions again. I think we are talking about 50 or 60 decisions, but this will mean that the proper safeguards are in place.

Tom Pursglove: I would argue that the safeguards that we have accepted, which Lord Anderson proposed with real sincerity, a real interest, expertise and experience in these matters, strike the right balance between keeping our people in this country safe from harm—that is, of course, the first duty of any Government and a responsibility that we take incredibly seriously—while making sure that there is judicial oversight of the process and that, as part of the Home Office’s work, we have internal checks to ensure that the powers will be used appropriately.
Lords amendment 5B relates to the compliance of part 2 of the Bill with the refugee convention. The Bill—I insist on this in the strongest terms—is compatible with all of our obligations under international law. Our position has not changed and we do not consider it necessary to put this on the face of this Bill.

Tim Loughton: Will the Minister give way?

Tom Pursglove: I give way to my hon. Friend, who is always persistent.

Tim Loughton: I am very grateful—I am not optimistic about getting three minutes to speak, so I thought that I would intervene now.
The Minister knows that I will support the Government on the tough measures to clamp down on this vile trade across the channel, but he also knows that I think they should be tempered with the greater availability of safe and legal routes, particularly along the lines of family reunion. He kindly offered a meeting to me at the Dispatch Box the last time that we debated that. I hope that we will get that in time, before the legislation goes through. He knows that I will support again the Dubs amendment—Lords amendment 10B—because Lord Dubs has now changed it to focus exclusively on providing a safe route for unaccompanied children in Europe seeking protection and reunification with family in the UK. What more does Lord Dubs have to do to make that acceptable to the Government? I think it should be acceptable now.

Tom Pursglove: As I said last time we debated these matters, my hon. Friend cares passionately about this issue. I look forward to our meeting tomorrow, and I am keen to hear his suggestions and ideas. I will, of course, address his substantive point later in my remarks.
Amendment 6B would make the Government’s plan of differentiation unworkable, and it goes against one of the fundamental points of the Bill, which is to deter people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that we want to see a stop to all such journeys to the UK, and therefore we cannot support the amendment.

David Simmonds: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tom Pursglove: I must make some progress, as I am conscious that quite a lot of hon. Members want to speak in this debate. I will try to take my hon. Friend’s intervention later if I can.
Amendments 7B and 7C would allow people claiming asylum, and their adult dependants, the right to work in six months, rather than the current 12 months, and would remove the condition restricting jobs, for those allowed to work, to those on the shortage occupation list. These amendments would allow people to undermine the economic migration scheme by lodging an asylum claim, and they could also encourage channel crossings.
The Government want to see claims settled within six months so that people can get on with rebuilding their life, which includes working. We are making every effort to ensure this is a reality under the wider new plan for immigration. I therefore advise the House that we cannot accept the amendments.

Robert Buckland: Does my hon. Friend accept that Lords amendments 7B  and 7C have been qualified to make the proper concession that people seeking asylum should not be given preferential treatment to those who already have refugee status and that there is a built-in review period? I and others have said on many occasions that there is simply no evidence to suggest that a limited right to work is a pull factor. We are following what Denmark does with regard to Rwanda, so why do we not do the same with regard to a limited right to work?

Tom Pursglove: I am concerned that the evil criminal gangs miss no opportunity to try to market a vision of coming to the United Kingdom, and I think there is a powerful dynamic to the issue of work in the conversations between the people smugglers and the individuals whose trade they seek to engage. I will, of course, continue to engage with my right hon. and learned Friend on this issue.
I recognise that colleagues both in this House and in the other place have strong views on these matters, which must always be considered very carefully. Again, I do not want to do anything that encourages people to make these dangerous crossings of the channel. I think the best way to resolve this issue is to transform the casework to get it right so that this is not an issue in the first place.
Amendment 10B would create a new Dubs-style immigration rule to allow unaccompanied children in Europe who have UK family links to be admitted to the UK to claim asylum. This amendment creates a more favourable approach to refugee family reunion for those who are already in Europe, which is clearly unfair.  Beyond that, these children would enter the asylum system upon arrival, which costs money to process, when our current family reunion rules are more generous and grant leave.
This is a single global approach to family reunion that does not encourage what are often dangerous journeys into Europe. If relationships break down, as does happen, these children would enter the care system as looked-after children, adding additional cost to the taxpayer when we currently have children in hotels awaiting care placements.
Additionally, subsection (1) could be interpreted more broadly, creating a risk that it would apply to a much broader group—at its broadest, requiring us to make provision for people of all ages to come to the UK to claim asylum. This is probably not the intention of the noble Lord Dubs, but it would be very undesirable for such an ambiguous provision to make its way on to the statute book. The cost of such global provision, most broadly interpreted, would be staggering.

David Simmonds: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tom Pursglove: I will make some progress, as it is important that hon. Members have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
Lords amendment 11B focuses on setting a target for the number of refugees the UK would resettle each year. Our view has long been that the number of refugees and people in need of protection we resettle each year must be based on our capacity and our assessment of the international situation. That has not changed. As such, we do not think the Lords amendment is necessary. On Lords amendment 13B, I thank the other place for understanding that there is a need to be able to prosecute criminals who seek to evade immigration controls and return to the UK, but the amendment is too narrow in its scope, to the point where it would not allow for the prosecution of someone attempting to arrive in the UK who has previously been excluded from the UK on national security grounds. Limiting the amended offence to cover only those who arrive in breach of a deportation order would also prevent the prosecution of arriving passengers in egregious cases when there are aggravating factors that show that prosecution is in the public interest. As such, the amendment would still compromise our plans to enhance the security of our borders and so we cannot accept it. I also appreciate those in the other place for their detailed consideration of clause 40. However, by proposing Lords amendment 20B and replacing “for gain” with a statutory defence of “without reasonable excuse”, they would compromise our plans to enhance our ability to prosecute people smugglers. The amendment would simply add a new barrier to successful prosecutions and create uncertainty, as appropriate defences are already provided in common law, such as “acting under duress”.
I turn next to the modern slavery amendments. Lords amendment 25B is too narrow and does not fulfil the aims of the original clause; it will not protect the system for tackling modern slavery from those who present a threat to public order or risk to national security. The amended definition does not include individuals who have been served with terrorism notices, who have been involved in terrorism-related activity or who otherwise pose a risk to national security, nor does it include individuals who have been convicted of serious criminal  offences such as manslaughter, murder, violent acts and sexual offences. Having listened to concerns raised, we have provided further detail in the House of Lords about the proportionate approach we will take to implement this measure and clarity on the mitigating factors that will be taken into account as part of the case-by-case approach, but we cannot agree to the amendment.
On Lords amendment 26, the Government’s unshakeable position is that support should be provided on the basis of need, tailored to the individual and their personal circumstances. During the passage of the Bill, we have committed that, where necessary, all those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of specific support will receive appropriate tailored support for a minimum of 12 months. What still concerns us about this amendment is that it moves us away from taking an individualised, needs-based approach to the provision of support, so we cannot support it.

Iain Duncan Smith: I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about this, but the main point to be taken from it—I hope to speak about this later—is the reality that right now this minimum period is interrupted constantly by reviews and inquiries and so they destabilise the ones we need to help. Will he look at this again before we go any further and discuss it with me, so that we may look at something stronger?

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention and long-standing interest in this issue. He and I, along with other Ministers, share a common goal in wanting to bring to justice the individuals responsible for this heinous criminality of people trafficking. We are very willing to engage on this. One thing we have discussed in meetings is an openness and willingness to engage on the guidance in place on these matters. As I have said before in this House, there are further opportunities coming on the issue of modern slavery and we are keen to ensure that he is involved in that discussion and dialogue, along with the charitable organisations he works with, to make sure that we get this right, because there is a moral imperative to bring these people to justice. We all want to make sure that individuals are getting the care and support they need to help facilitate that important process.

Margaret Ferrier: Does the Minister agree that any legislation touching on modern slavery must recognise that it takes human beings time to process trauma and gain an ability to talk about it? By imposing arbitrary deadlines for victims to declare that they are victims, which many may not really understand themselves, the Government are punishing and further victimising, where they should be supporting. That is particularly true in respect of children or survivors of sexual trauma.

Tom Pursglove: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this point. I can give her the reassurance that at all times a trauma-based approach is taken when dealing with these matters, and rightly so, because the horrendous experiences that people have had are unthinkable and unimaginable. We have only to speak to survivors to realise the enormous impact that these events have on them. It is right that we respond in a way that is appropriate and sensitive to people’s circumstances.  That principle will continue to underpin all the work we do. On the late provision of information, good reasons will apply at all times and proper account will be taken of individual circumstances and the reasons why individuals have not been able to provide timely information.
Let me conclude by addressing Lords amendments 53B, 53C and 53D. As colleagues will be aware, last week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a world-first deal with Rwanda. The UK and Rwanda migration and economic development partnership addresses the shared international challenge of illegal migration and will help to break the business model of evil people-smuggling gangs. Those who make dangerous, illegal or unnecessary journeys to claim asylum in the UK may now be relocated to Rwanda, which will take responsibility for processing their claims and, if they are recognised as refugees, building their lives there.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister says the proposal is to break the business model of people smugglers; he will know that his Department’s own impact assessment said that
“evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach is limited”,
and went on to say that it was potentially counterproductive. Where is his evidence for the policy?

Tom Pursglove: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I debated these matters many times in Committee and it is fair to say that the approach he advocates is in essence a charter to do nothing. I do not think it is acceptable to stand back, throw our hands in the air and say that this is all too difficult. We have to take action. The new plan for immigration is delivering meaningful change and I genuinely believe it will make a difference. Of course, such considerations often require consideration of the number of people who come here, the flow and all the pertinent and relevant issues. It is difficult to predict the number of people who will come at any given point in time. I believe we are introducing meaningful changes that will dramatically shift the dial and, ultimately, help to preserve lives.

Steve Brine: The Minister knows, because we have discussed the matter several times since the announcement, that a lot of my constituents are very concerned about the Rwanda partnership deal, as am I, but the truth is that how we will operate the scheme is as yet unknown. Many have conflated the issue in respect of last week’s announcement with this Bill. Will the Minister assure me that the legislation that enables the partnership predates this Bill and this Government? Will he also reassure me and my constituents in respect of the screening programme and specifically how LGBTQ people will interact with it? There are many concerns about that and our friends in Rwanda.

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend always raises pertinent issues on behalf of his constituents in Winchester. As the Home Secretary set out yesterday, the legal basis for the policy is the new Labour—I know it is not fashionable to talk about new Labour on the Opposition Benches—policies of 1999, 2002 and 2004, when the Labour party had a genuine and thorough position on these matters that I am afraid is not in place today, when we hear a lot  of criticism but no meaningful alternative is brought forward to address the issues. For the reasons I have set out, I argue that we have to take action to address the terrible criminality that puts lives at risk. That argument underpins the legislation.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend asks whether there is an alternative to the Rwanda scheme, which I accept is not directly part of this legislation. The salary of an immigration tribunal judge—a first-tier tribunal judge—is £117,000. If we put on oncosts, even most generously we get £200,000. So far, £120 million has been committed to the Rwanda scheme; around 600 first-tier tribunal judges could be bought for that, or any number of hundreds of Home Office caseworkers. Given that the Cart legislation is now quite rightly being restricted, surely a constructive alternative would be to invest in the current system.

Tom Pursglove: I agree with my hon. Friend in the sense that that is one intervention we need to make to improve matters considerably. We all want to see cases considered more quickly and to give people certainty either way as soon as possible. We are delivering that objective through the new plan for immigration—it is front and centre—but in itself it will not solve the issues. I genuinely believe that the approach that we are taking, through the comprehensive plan, will shift the dial, change the dynamic, and, ultimately, help us to shut down these evil criminal networks.

Jacob Young: Going back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) about the evidence for this policy working, does he, as a member of the Bill Committee, recall hearing evidence from the Australian Government about how offshoring worked as a system to get down the irregular migration numbers?

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend is right to say that the evidence that we heard from the Australian representatives advocated the policy approach that was taken in that country. I would argue that the approach that we are taking in relation to these matters is important, too, and will help us to tackle this issue head on and help to disrupt the work of these evil criminal gangs.
On the reference to the screening process, I must go back to the fundamental point, which is that people will be relocated only if it is safe for them. That consideration will be taken in relation to every case, taking proper account of people’s circumstances. At all times, we will act in accordance with our obligations, through both the European Court of Human Rights and the refugee convention, and those obligations apply on the other side as well.

David Davis: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Tom Pursglove: I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but I am very conscious of the time.

David Davis: I will make this point quickly. Yesterday, the erstwhile Prime Minister made the point to the Home Secretary that any group identified as protected   will then become incentivised to cross the channel, so, for example, if we say that families are protected, then that will create an incentive for families to cross the channel. How will my hon. Friend square that particular conundrum?

Tom Pursglove: I will not say any more over and above that which I have already set out this afternoon. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary provided further detail on this yesterday, and I refer the House to the points that she made.
This bespoke international agreement is in full compliance with domestic and international law. Rwanda is a state party to the 1951 refugee convention and the seven core UN human rights conventions, with a strong history of supporting refugees. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear yesterday that this partnership is the type of international co-operation that we need to make the global immigration system fairer, keep people safe, and give them opportunities to flourish. This is just one part of the system-wide reform that we promised to deliver in the new plan for immigration.
The objective of the Rwanda partnership announced last week is to create a mechanism for the relocation of individuals whose claims are not being considered by the UK—the inadmissible—to Rwanda, which will then process their claims. However, in future, we may wish to extend eligibility for overseas processing to those who have otherwise abused the UK’s asylum system, beyond undertaking dangerous or unnecessary journeys. That is the intention of this measure, which will make it easier for us to remove those who have pending asylum claims to another country for their claims to be processed.
Let me remind the House—I have set this out already, but it bears repeating—that the powers set out in clause 28 via schedule 3 are not new. For nearly 20 years, it has been possible under UK law to remove individuals from the UK while their asylum claim is pending if a certificate is issued under schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004. The measure in the Bill amends existing legal frameworks to make it easier to remove such individuals without going through a certification process, provided the country to which they are being removed meets the safety criteria that we have set out in the Bill. It is important to bear in mind that the asylum system is already very expensive. At an annual cost of around £1.5 billion, it is the highest in more than two decades. Every day, the cost of the broken system on hotels alone is nearly £5 million. We therefore cannot accept these amendments.
I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House for their attendance at this important debate today. I urge them to consider that this Bill is what the British people have given us a mandate to deliver and to vote with the Government to send a message to the other place that what has been proposed is not accepted by this House. The Bill secures our borders, ensures that those who need our help will receive it and, as each of us here sincerely want, will save countless lives being risked crossing the channel each and every day when people traffickers realise that this is not a viable occupation for them any more.

Nigel Evans: Multiple votes will begin no later than 5.48 pm.

Stephen Kinnock: Our country deserves an asylum system that offers the public confidence that the Government are in control of it, that is fair and consistent, and that is based on showing compassion to those who are fleeing for their lives. The legislation before us today fails not only to meet those basic principles, but to address the specific challenges we face.
The Bill will not deter dangerous journeys across the English channel. Indeed, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and top police chief have said repeatedly that it will make it harder, not easier, to prosecute people smugglers. It will not tackle the 12,000-long queue of Afghan refugees loyal to Britain who are currently languishing in hotels, alongside a further 25,000 asylum seekers, at an eye-watering cost to the British taxpayer of £4.7 million daily.
Frankly, that is a shameful state of affairs, exacting an awful cost on communities and placing an awful financial burden on the taxpayer. It is caused by this Home Secretary, on whose watch we have seen a staggering 60% drop in processed claims. Since the Bill was last before this House, the amendments have changed, but so has the context. The legislation before us today must now be debated against the backdrop of the Government’s Rwanda offloading agreement, which was announced last week in a desperate attempt to distract attention from all the lawbreaking in Downing Street.

Jacob Young: Can the shadow Minister give us a simple yes or no on whether the Labour party supports the Rwanda plan?

Stephen Kinnock: I can give a very simple answer: the Labour party does not support the Rwanda plan, for reasons that I am about to set out.
Labour supports all the amendments before us today that seek to mitigate the worst excesses of this profoundly inadequate and mean-spirited piece of legislation, which reflects the toxic combination of incompetence and indifference that we have come to expect from this Home Secretary. The reality is that this Bill is an exercise in damage limitation—in essence, an attempt by the Home Secretary to deal with the awful mess she has been making since she was appointed in 2019.
The clauses on offshoring, inadmissibility, differential treatment and offence of arrival are symptomatic of a shambolic Government who have completely lost control of our asylum system to the extent that they are now seeking to dump their problems on a developing country that is 4,000 miles away and has a questionable record on human rights. The Rwanda offloading plan enabled by this Bill is extortionately expensive, unworkable and un-British.
Looking first at the price of what is being proposed, it is quite extraordinary that the Home Secretary is either unwilling or unable to provide any clarity on this point by publishing the forecast cost, but the Rwanda plan is estimated to cost in the region of £30,000 per person—and that feels optimistic. Contrasting that with the £11,000 that it costs to process an asylum seeker here in the UK, we start to see the impact on the public purse.
The Prime Minister has said that he expects to send “tens of thousands” of asylum seekers to Rwanda per year, so we are looking at around £1 billion of taxpayers’  money spent by a Government who are doing absolutely nothing for British people hammered by the cost of living crisis. Then there is the £120 million in development aid. What, precisely, is that going to be spent on? Apparently it will not go towards paying for Rwandan caseworkers, so is it just the eye-watering price that the Home Secretary has paid for a press release?
Hon. Members should not just take my word for it. The Home Secretary’s own permanent secretary, Matthew Rycroft, stated:
“Value for money of the policy is dependent on it being effective as a deterrent. Evidence of a deterrent effect is highly uncertain and cannot be quantified with sufficient certainty to provide me with the necessary level of assurance over value for money.”
Labour agrees wholeheartedly with Mr Rycroft. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the Rwanda plan will deter the people smugglers or the small boats, and there is therefore not a shred of evidence to demonstrate that it will deliver value for money.
To understand value for money, the Government must provide forecasts for a range of scenarios. That is why we are supporting Lords amendments 53B to 53D. The amendments provide that in order to offshore refugees to a third state, the Secretary of State must lay regulations specifying the identity of that state and have them approved by Parliament. Before the Home Secretary may lay those regulations, costings must first be laid before both Houses. It is critical that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise both the offshoring and the offloading plans for value for money, particularly at a time when our constituents are facing a cost of living crisis.
If the Rwanda offloading agreement does not serve as a deterrent, then it is failing on its own terms and therefore also failing to provide value for money. But there is also a chance that the scheme may not even get off the ground as it will end up getting bogged down in the legal system. There can be absolutely no doubt that the Government’s claim that Rwanda is a safe country for refugees will be challenged in the courts given that thousands of Rwandans seek asylum in Europe every year, with 76 Rwandan citizens granted asylum here in the UK since 2017. It is well worth noting that in 2019 Israel cancelled its offloading agreement with Rwanda after it emerged that the vast majority of refugees sent to Rwanda left within days of arriving there and after it was revealed that it had led to immense suffering, including subjecting vulnerable people to human trafficking.
It is highly likely that the Rwanda offloading plan will unravel because it is both eye-wateringly expensive and unworkable, but it is also deeply un-British—because the decision to outsource our problems to a developing country halfway across the globe with a questionable record on human rights just does not feel right. It is just not the way we do things in this country. That is why we are supporting a number of amendments to bring the Bill closer to reflecting our values as a nation. Labour Members have continually made the case that the Bill must meet Britain’s obligations under the 1951 UN refugee convention, and we are supporting Lords amendment 5B, which secures this.
Our country’s historical commitment to offering safe haven to refugees leads us to support a number of the other amendments before us today. First, we support  Lords amendment 6B, which seeks to ensure that all refugees are given their convention rights and that family unity is maintained, even if the Government are determined to introduce the utterly inappropriate differential treatment aspect of this Bill, which, shamefully, contravenes the UN convention.
Secondly, we support Lords amendment 13B, which, if accepted, rather than criminalising Ukrainians and other desperate refugees who arrive here without clearance, would criminalise only those who have already been deported. We should not be seeking to create a second class of refugee. Many of these people are desperate when they arrive on our doorstep, and the Government would do well to remember that.
Thirdly, we support Lords amendment 11B, which calls on the Home Secretary to set targets for taking in a number of refugees each year and would force her to finally do some medium-term planning rather than constantly scrambling to make it up as she goes along.
Fourthly, we support Lords amendment 10B, which provides for family reunion of unaccompanied refugees in Europe.

David Simmonds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, as I am, that the experience of local authorities involved in the resettlement of refugee children is that the majority of those brought to the UK on the basis of reunion with family are in fact coming straight into the care system because the relations in the UK are not able to look after them? It therefore seems to me that the Government are right to resist on this point and to seek an alternative and better way of managing the resettlement of unaccompanied children coming to the UK.

Stephen Kinnock: There are two dimensions to what the hon. Gentleman is questioning. The first is about the capacity and the capability here in the UK. There are of course examples of where families are not able to take care of children, but I do not believe that those are the majority, and where that is the case we need to ensure that local authorities are adequately resourced to be able to deal with the issue. The second is about the Government’s approach on this. The Minister argued that it is about taking a global approach, but we can clearly see that it is much more about the hostile environment and the basic mindset in the Home Office. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That is why the amendment in the name of Lord Dubs is absolutely the right way to go.
Fifthly, we support Lords amendment 25B, which seeks to undo the Government’s unlawful bid to, in effect, criminalise modern slavery victims who have been pushed into crime by human traffickers. We are clear that only criminals who have committed serious public order offences such as terrorism or other serious offences, as established via a Government consultation, should have their protection withdrawn.
The Home Secretary is desperately trying to clean up the mess that she has been making since 2018, and is rolling the dice on an extortionately expensive, unworkable and deeply un-British proposal. Instead of dreaming up headline-grabbing announcements and pie-in-the-sky ideas, she should listen to the Opposition’s sensible and practical solutions. First, the Home Secretary needs to  invest to save, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), so correctly pointed out. She needs to hire more caseworkers and invest in the court system, so that we can process applications quickly and dramatically reduce the ludicrous £4.7 million a day that is being wasted on housing refugees in expensive hotels.
Secondly, on the small boat crossings, rather than dreaming up unworkable gimmicks, the Home Secretary should focus on engaging constructively with France and the European Union to negotiate a returns agreement and build effective security co-operation to combat the people smugglers. Rather than constantly seeking cheap headlines in The Daily Mail, as the Government like to do, Labour would use its stronger relationship with our European neighbours to reset the UK-France relationship, and would engage constructively to negotiate a robust migration and security agreement with the European Union. We would of course legislate to prevent people smugglers from using social media to advertise their services; that was the purpose of a Labour amendment that the Government shamefully rejected early in the passage of the Bill.
A lot has been said about the Rwanda announcement being timed to distract from partygate, but it is just as likely that the announcement was intended to distract from the litany of failures that has come to define the tenure of the Home Secretary. Over 200,000 people offered their homes to Ukrainians, and somehow the Home Secretary managed to turn this story of inspiring British generosity into a bureaucratic nightmare. Some 12,000 Afghans who so loyally and bravely served our country are languishing in hotels. We owe them a debt of gratitude, yet the Home Secretary has treated them with contempt. We have a Passport Office in meltdown, with delays ruining the well-earned Easter breaks of hard-working British families, who have been through so much over the last few years, and now we have the spectacle of this extortionate, unworkable and profoundly un-British Rwanda cash-for-offloading plan.
The Home Secretary certainly has a mountain to climb if she wishes to regain the trust of the British people, but if she were to instruct Conservative Members to join us in supporting the amendments this evening, it would at least be a start.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to be called to speak so early, and I will be as brief as possible.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we have already had these discussions. In fact, the Government moved on the issue; they did so by putting proposals into guidance. The problem with guidance is that it is guidance—it is not obligatory—so the problem with Lords amendment 26B is that the Bill is incomplete, because until these measures are in the Bill, there is no support for confirmed victims after the national referral mechanism process is completed; it is all by judgment.
The current system is deeply destabilising for confirmed victims. I am talking about confirmed victims, not other people who have come over. These are people who we agree are victims of modern-day slavery, and we should be very generous to them. What else is there to do? They are victims. Confirmed victims currently receive support under the recovery needs assessment, or RNA, process. Under this process, many victims receive support only for short periods of time. There is no 12-month period,  and they therefore undergo repeated needs assessments. The Minister should go through the system and see how painful this is for confirmed victims. It is destabilising and can be harmful to victims’ mental health; we know that. It requires victims to constantly provide “evidence” of need, with support available only for “needs arising from exploitation”. They are confirmed victims, and they do not know how long they will need support, which means that they are worried about what will happen if there is no agreement. That can put them back in the hands of the traffickers—the thing that we say we are against.
Justice and Care’s recent victim navigator study showed that when victims were given support for a minimum period, 89% of those supported by Justice and Care’s programme chose to engage with police investigations, and we got more prosecutions. One does not need a bleeding heart to see the sense of this. It will enable us to prosecute the traffickers. That is what I want my Government to do. Right now, the average percentage of victims who engage with investigations is not 89%, but 33%. People who are very worried, destabilised and uncertain about how long they will be supported for will not give evidence. They will not go to the police or engage with them, because they are frightened. If we give them a minimum of 12 months of support, we will get more prosecutions. As a result, we will both save money and provide some serious security for these victims. I genuinely beg the Government to make the change now, because it is decent, reasonable and the right thing to do. Can we please discuss the matter further before it comes up again, and can we do this?

Stuart McDonald: Members on both sides of the House might agree that the Lords got it right when they said that the timetabling arrangements for this House left a lot to be desired. We have one hour to debate 12 substantive and important amendments, and we will end up voting on them for three hours. It makes absolutely no sense.
I could be very succinct and just say that the SNP position remains that this is an atrocious and horrendous Bill, and therefore we support everything that the House of Lords has attempted to do to rein it in, but I will not. However, out of deference to some of the very good speakers on both sides of this debate, I will try to stick to points on one or two of the amendments.
First, I turn to Lords amendment 5B, which simply states,
“For the avoidance of doubt,”
part 2 is compliant with the refugee convention
“and must be…given effect as such.”
The Minister has said several times that that is precisely the Government’s objective, so why on earth does he have a problem with putting those words in the Bill? I suspect that there are two answers, the first of which is that in reality, part 2 does not remotely live up to the demands of our international obligations. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Brown said in the other place:
“I truly believe, as do many others, that several of these provisions flagrantly breach our obligations as interpreted by the UNHCR”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1882.]
We respectfully agree with Lord Brown.
I suspect that the second reason for resisting this amendment is that Ministers are desperate to keep those words out of the Bill to make it more difficult to ask a court to adjudicate on whether the Bill is, in fact, consistent with the refugee convention. As Lord Brown said—he was directly addressing something that the Minister said here at the Bill’s last outing—it was
“quite wrong to suggest that there was no need for this amendment because the courts would anyway deal with the challenge to the legislation based on suggested non-compliance. I repeat: the amendment is vital. The courts otherwise cannot go behind the definitive clauses in the Bill and would have to apply them, compliant or not.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2020; Vol. 820, c. 1883.]
We agree; the Bill is fundamental to what we are doing here.

Patrick Grady: My hon. Friend is right that the amount of scrutiny time being afforded to this House is ridiculous. If the Government are not prepared to come to any kind of compromise with the House of Lords, would it not be even better for all these powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so that the people of Scotland could build the kind of humane immigration and asylum system that hundreds of constituents in Glasgow North have lobbied me to advocate for in this House?

Stuart McDonald: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has just said.
I turn to Lords amendments 15 and 13B, which bring us back to the sweeping criminalisation of asylum seekers and others arriving in the UK. We are talking about Afghans, Syrians, persecuted Christians and Uyghurs. Those are causes that many in this House advocate and speak up for all the time, and yet when these people come to our shores, suddenly we are planning to let them down, offshore them, discriminate against them, treat them abysmally and criminalise them under this legislation.
The Minister has said today that the Lords have defined the criminal offence too tightly and he wants to go back to a sweepingly broad offence. He assures us that that does not really matter, because we will not use the provision against the Afghans and Syrians; it will be used only in egregious cases. We cannot pass criminal laws on the basis of wishes and assurances expressed at the Dispatch Box that we will be quite reasonable in how we use them. He has to come up with the tight wording for the criminal offence that he is aiming at. If he does not, I am afraid we cannot support it at all; in fact, we fundamentally oppose it.
We believe that the Bill represents completely the wrong approach, and we continue to support the House of Lords in all it is doing to try to rein in the worst aspects. I hugely regret that we have had such a pitiful amount of time to say what we have to say about the amendments. In deference to other Members, I will sit down now and do my voting later on.

Andrew Mitchell: I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests.
I want to try to be constructive with the Minister this afternoon. I do not believe the Rwanda scheme will work, but I am full of good will towards the Home  Secretary when it comes to trying to stop this ghastly, deathly channel trade. The Minister asks those who think that the scheme is impractical, ineffective and extraordinarily expensive what we would do. He is right to ask that, so let me try to answer.
There are four things we must do. The first, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said, is to employ more staff. We need to ensure that we process these asylum claims more rapidly. In Rwanda, it takes three months to process an asylum claim. We ought to have a much more streamlined system in this country, and ought to try to do away with all these lawyers, who extend and prolong the process unnecessarily. That is a point the Government should definitely address.
Secondly, we need to put right our dreadful relationship with France, our neighbour just 22 miles away. The relationship is not what it should be. There are plenty of senior officials and people of good will who have a much better relationship with France, and we need to address that point and repair the relationship. Nothing can be achieved in tackling this evil trade without our having a far better understanding with France. We need, if not its active support, then its passive acquiescence at the very least in the measures that need to be taken.
Thirdly, we need safe and legal routes. I asked the Minister to set out what those routes are, and of course he was not able to.

David Simmonds: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern that many of us have who wish to see the Government succeed in their endeavours, which is that the legal test for anyone opposing immigration control is not that there are safe and legal routes in general, but that a person specifically had access to a safe and legal route but chose not to use it, which may undermine some of the objectives we wish to see? Safe and legal routes need to be much broader if they are going to work as an effective tool as part of this policy.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend absolutely puts his finger on the point, and he knows of what he speaks because he has dealt with these matters a senior councillor.
It was Lord Kirkhope who amended the Bill in the other place. He was Home Secretary Michael Howard’s Immigration Minister, and I think he holds the record as the Immigration Minister who has deported the most people needing to be deported from Britain. He also knows of what he speaks, and he made it clear that if we do not have safe and legal routes, we will not be able to make this system work. By definition, if we do not have such routes, anyone arriving on our shores will be arriving illegally, and that point needs to be addressed.
The fourth and final thing that needs to happen is that we need a new international convention. The 1951 convention, which Britain played a big part in setting up, is now completely out of date. That is because, since then, as colleagues will appreciate, there has been a revolution in travel. We also now have the tremendous push of climate change, which is pushing migration up very high. So we need a new international convention. I put this point to the Prime Minister on 25 July last year, and he described it as an “excellent point”, but I fear that since then nothing has been done. Britain needs to use its leverage and its experience at the United Nations   as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, and it also needs to use its brilliant diplomatic experience and knowledge to negotiate a new convention.
Those are the four key things that have to happen, and I hope the Minister will consider them before embarking on a scheme that, as I say, is impractical, ineffective and extraordinarily expensive. Rwanda is a safe country and a beacon of stability in Africa, but we should not export our problems in this way to a country that already tries to do its very best to help people who are caught up in humanitarian jeopardy.

Kate Osamor: I would like to use my three minutes, which have not come up on the clock yet, to focus on Lords amendment 6B. It is truly damning of the Government’s conduct that they oppose an amendment that merely seeks to guarantee refugees their rights under the 1951 UN refugee convention.
There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker under international law, yet under the Government’s plans, unlike refugees who have arrived on officially sanctioned routes, group 2 refugees—I will focus on them—who are deemed to have arrived in the UK in an illegitimate manner will only be offered temporary protection status and will have no recourse to public funds. As chair of the all-party group on no recourse to public funds, I am only too aware of its devastating human impacts. The Bill would further expand the number of people without access to public funds such as welfare benefits and housing assistance, and thereby ensure that thousands more refugees a year fleeing war and persecution are at increased risk of falling into destitution and homelessness once they have reached the UK.
If this Government were truly interested in the wellbeing of refugees, they would build a support network and safety net to enable those who have sought refuge in the UK to live comfortably and have fruitful lives, rather than chip away at existing support and create a tiered system. I urge all Members to support Lords amendment 6B to ensure that refugees living in the UK are not forced into poverty and destitution.

Nigel Evans: I call Sally-Ann Hart to speak until 5.47 pm.

Sally-Ann Hart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall be quick and focus on Lords amendment 7. The question whether asylum seekers are able to undertake work after six months was raised in March, when the Bill was last debated in this House. Replying to our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), spoke about getting casework right. Will he confirm that the measures in the Bill, together with the UK and Rwanda economic development partnership, will mean that there should be no asylum seekers still in a state of limbo, waiting for their asylum status to be determined, after six months, and that such an amendment is therefore not needed?

Tom Pursglove: I thank Members across the House for their contributions to this afternoon’s debate on issues that are of the utmost importance. I would argue  that there is a moral imperative to act that underpins the Government’s approach in addressing the challenges. It simply is not good enough for people to say what they do not want and what they do not like: when criticising and arguing that something is wrong, they have to present a credible alternative plan, particularly if they have ambitions to govern. This Bill delivers our comprehensive plan—the only credible plan—to address these issues. Now is the time to get on and deliver it.

Nigel Evans: I have to give some information before putting the Question. I have been given an indication that there is likely to be in the order of 11 Divisions this evening. Ten minutes will be allowed for the first and eight minutes for every one following, so I advise people to stay near the Lobbies. Hopefully, we will get through this as quickly as possible.
One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 22 March).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83G), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4G.
The House proceeded to a Division.

Nigel Evans: Order. We understand that one pass reader is out in the No Lobby. They are going to try to reboot it before the next vote, but at the moment, like a parking meter, it has one of those hoods over it, so clearly do not use that one.

The House having divided: Ayes 311, Noes 231.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 4G disagreed to.

Before Clause 11 - Interpretation of Part 2

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 231.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 5B disagreed to.

Clause 11 - Differential treatment of refugees

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 225.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 6B disagreed to.

After Clause 12 - Changes to the Immigration Act 1971

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 242.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 7B disagreed to.
Lords amendment 7C disagreed to.

After Clause 15 - Safe third State: commencement

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 8B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 236.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 8B disagreed to.

Lords amendment 8C disagreed to. - Schedule 3Lords amendment 8C disagreed to.

Removal of asylum seeker to safe country

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 53B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 234.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 53B disagreed to.
Lords amendments 53C and 53D disagreed to.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Conversations should not be loud while we are having Divisions. You can whisper quietly and pretend to be polite, but speaking at the top of your voice so that nobody else can be heard is simply rude and impolite, and you should not do it in the Chamber.

After Clause 37 - Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 10B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 235.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 10B disagreed to.

After Clause 37 - Refugee resettlement schemes

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 231.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 11B disagreed to.

Clause 39 - Illegal entry and similar offences

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 13B, and insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 15.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 228.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 13B disagreed to, and Commons disagreement with Lords amendment 15 insisted on.

Eleanor Laing: Before we come to the next Division, I must inform Members that unfortunately the pass readers in the No Lobby are not working—it must be assumed that they are overstrained this evening—so the Clerks will shortly take their place at the Division desks in that Lobby. In the No Lobby only, the Clerks will be there to record Members’ names on paper. I am sorry about this and hope that Members remember how to vote by nodding to the Clerk. In the Aye Lobby, matters will continue as normal with the card readers.

Clause 40 - Assisting unlawful immigration or asylum seeker

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 20B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 227.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 20B disagreed to.

Eleanor Laing: Before we continue with the business, I apologise for the delay that has occurred in the No Lobby due to the breakdown in the electronic system. I had asked for the electronic system to be fixed, but unfortunately, because there have been so many Divisions in quick succession, the engineers have not been able to do whatever they have to do to fix the system. I then attempted to go back to the old system, where we have Clerks ticking off names on bits of paper. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] No, no, I apologise—there might be some enthusiasm for that system among those who were voting in the other Lobby, but not from those who have told me about the shambolic effect in the No Lobby. I have therefore decided to attempt to go back to what we were doing earlier today—the electronic system. There are two electronic readers, rather than four, working in the No Lobby, but it appears that that will be faster than having people with bits of paper, so we will now revert to the electronic system in the No Lobby. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank Members for their forbearance—that is, if we have any further Divisions.

Clause 62 - Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protectionClause 62

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 25B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 228.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 25B disagreed to.

Before Clause 64 - Confirmed victims in England and Wales: assistance and support

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 26B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 184.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 26B disagreed to.
Lords amendment 24B agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 4G, 5B, 6B, 7B, 7C, 8B, 8C, 10B, 11B, 13B, 20B, 25B, 26B, 53B, 53C and 53D;
That Tom Pursglove, Scott Mann, Mr Gagan Mohindra, Paul Holmes, Stephen Kinnock, Chris Elmore and Stuart C. McDonald be members of the Committee;
That Tom Pursglove be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Planning and Development: Women’s Safety

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Christine Jardine: The debate that I have secured this evening might seem at first like a discussion about planning, but actually it is so much more. Let me say first of all that I recognise that the Government have already taken steps to address the need for safety, particularly women’s safety, to be taken into account in planning developments: it is set out in guidance for local authorities, and in many cases the police are an integral part of decision making.
I appreciate that earlier this year the Minister took the time to discuss with me a Bill that I introduced to Parliament on the topic, the Planning (Women’s Safety) Bill, but—and it is a very big “but”—we are still not addressing the issue at its heart, or in a way that reassures women and girls across the country that they are safe, nor are we doing it sufficiently loudly at a national level.
I have a 25-year-old daughter for whom I wished and genuinely believed that we could achieve a world that was much safer for her generation than it had been for mine, but when I consider the reality of modern life I realise that in so many ways we have not. Not only does she still text me to tell me she is safe when she gets home, but I have to text her to say that I am safe when I get home. Unfortunately, that is the measure of how insecure women and girls feel in our society today, making their way home on our streets.
The mention of Sarah Everard’s name conjures up a very difficult period not just for her family, but for all of us. The outpouring of grief that followed her death was indicative of the very feeling that I have spoken about. Women saw themselves in Sarah Everard, with the threat that they face every day. Sadly, she was just one of the hundreds who tragically lose their lives in this country every year.
Between April 2019 and March 2021, 177 women were killed by a man in this country. In 2020 alone, 110 women were killed. The built environment may not have played a part in all or even many of those deaths, but if we can save just one life by doing things differently, surely we should. It is not good enough that we still have to have vigils and run campaigns to draw attention to the problem—a problem that is only too visible. It is there staring us all in the face every day: when we go to work, when we make our way home in the evening, when we put the bins out. I know because, like every woman in this place, I live that reality. I think about overgrown hedges, about alleyways that are not properly lit, about roads that are deserted. The reality is that we are living in built environments that do not take our vulnerabilities into account, because for the most part they were created by people—men—who did not share those vulnerabilities or fully understand them. That is not a judgment; it is simply an internationally recognised fact.
I want us to start to shift the building blocks to ensure that our built environment is designed and created with protecting women not just in mind but central to everything that is done—that it is no longer an afterthought. It should not take a tragedy, the loss of a young life, to be the catalyst for our motivation to do that.
The issue of women being omitted from consideration in urban planning is, sadly, neither imagined nor new. Politicians and planners are acknowledging in cities across the world that women experience their environments differently from men. For example, women who combine productive work with being a mother or carer are more likely to use parks and public spaces in daylight hours. I want to see legislation demanding that all projects of this kind have undergone risk assessments undertaken by women—and not just piecemeal, authority by authority, but conducted by a recognised national standards agency to ensure that they meet national safety criteria before they can be granted planning permission. If gender bias could be removed from the design of our built environment, we might actually begin to prevent, rather than react to, violence against women. We need well-lit walkways and safe routes from public transport. We need design without gender bias and with gender appreciation built in—a safe last mile home for women in this country. Let us not forget that that will benefit everyone.
We can provide women with the foundations that they need to have more agency and to feel less vulnerable in their daily lives. We need to see equality between men and women in policy and in legislation. What works for one does not work for all: we know that. We need to go back to basics in planning, and take the necessary steps to protect women. I know that when the Minister responds he will draw attention to the steps that are already being taken to improve the situation, which I acknowledge. The national model design code safety guidelines state:
“Consideration needs to be given to safety and security issues in respect of street layouts and footways, especially in areas in which”
there are
“a large number of people…Passive surveillance of the street, good lighting and high levels of street activity are desirable”.
The guidance also states, in respect of public spaces:
“Insecure places can disproportionately affect some of the groups with protected characteristics. Local authorities will need to take this into account when devising and implementing design principles, having regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty”.
That does include thinking about women, but, again, it is a piecemeal approach, authority by authority. Some authorities have done a good deal—London has considered this in its planning, as have Ipswich, Nottingham and many others—but all of it is done in a way that is almost obscured from the public; the public are not aware of it. Although it is a fantastic first step, we need to do more. One of the most important steps towards women’s safety would be to make them feel secure, confident in the knowledge that an area had been well designed, knowing which areas are safest, and knowing that it had all been done with their safety in mind.
This campaign must not only involve women. It must be vocal, visible and accessible to women across the country, not just here in Westminster but through a national discussion. Perhaps the Government could consider a commission to hear the views of women from all parts of the country, and consider significantly involving the devolved authorities so that we can act together as a United Kingdom to safeguard the safety of our women and girls and, as we build a fairer society, build a safer society as well when we build our cities.

Stuart Andrew: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this important debate. She is right to highlight and speak so powerfully about the issues that she has raised. I too want to take a moment to pay tribute to Sarah Everard and all those other women who have sadly been victims in this country. The Government empathise deeply with the calls for a greater focus on women’s safety in planning and more generally. This is a priority in my Department and it rightly deserves a cross-Government approach. However, I want to say at the outset that planning is a devolved matter, so I can speak only for the laws and rules that extend to England. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the planning system in England already has a framework of policy and guidance in place to make new developments safe, and I am grateful to have this opportunity to highlight it today so that, hopefully, planning authorities around the country will be even more aware of the guidance that is in place.

Matt Western: I thank the Minister for giving way and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate. It is important, and it has made me think about the challenges involved.
One point I want to raise with the Minister is that this is not just about the planning of new developments; it is about the delivery of them as well. There are several estates being built in my constituency. People are already moving in, and many women have approached me and said that there is no safety in the form of street lights, pavements and secure walkways for them. So this is about not only the absolute end of the project but the delivery of the development.

Stuart Andrew: The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. I have had exactly the same sort of developments in my own constituency—large developments that have taken a number of years. In fact, I helped to get some street lighting in the first part of one development because I had exactly the same issues. These are things that I will certainly take more consideration of in this role.
Our view is that any change to the existing planning system requires careful consideration in order to avoid any unintended consequences. I will briefly set out for hon. Members the current planning process in England, but I must reiterate that women’s safety relies on much more than just good planning practice, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said. My Department has made it clear through the national planning policy framework that planning policies and decisions should aim to create safe places. Chapter 8 of the framework explicitly states that planning policies and decisions should promote public safety. That can often be achieved with pedestrian cycle routes, high-quality public spaces and the active use of park and playgrounds.
The supporting section of the framework’s planning practice guidance on healthy and safe communities expands on that. It states:
“Planning provides an important opportunity to consider the security of the built environment”
and
“those that live and work in it.”
It also references section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended. This requires all local, joint and combined authorities to exercise their functions with regard to their effect on crime and disorder, and to do all they reasonably can to prevent both.
On the subject of design in the planning system, the hon. Lady rightly mentioned the national design guide and the national model design code, which help councils and builders to create buildings that are safe for every member of the community. Specifically, the national design guide sets out 10 characteristics of well-designed places that councils can refer to when considering a planning application. The guide is also used by planners creating local policy so that they, together with the community, can define what good and safe design means in that area.
The national guide emphasises that where developments have public spaces and a network of streets, they must be safe and secure and accessible to all. Importantly, the guide makes it clear that shared spaces should be safe and feel safe, not just for the people living or working in nearby buildings but for visitors and passers-by too. That is essential for overcoming crime and the fear of crime because, as hon. Members will know, when a development gains a reputation for being quiet, poorly lit or dangerous, it is likely to attract even more criminal behaviour and it becomes a vicious cycle.
The national design guide does a lot to prevent that from the outset by asking for an assessment of risks in all new developments and a clear plan for mitigating them. It also encourages the use of what are known in the industry as “active frontages” so there is a steady stream of people taking the same route at different times of the day.
Finally, the guide makes it clear that natural surveillance should be factored into the planning equation, with windows and balconies so that people can feel safe in the knowledge that local streets and public spaces can be seen by people nearby from above and at street level.
That is what the national design guide seeks to achieve, but there is also the national model design code, which sets a baseline standard of quality and practice that councils are expected to meet when developing their own local design codes and determining planning applications. This includes how the design of new developments should enhance the health and wellbeing of local communities and create safe, inclusive and active environments.
The national model design code states that developments should include natural surveillance of the street, good lighting and high levels of footfall to deter criminal behaviour and ensure people feel safe walking the street. Importantly, the code reminds planners that insecure places can disproportionately affect groups with protected characteristics, including gender.
The Government’s policy and guidance on safety in new developments must be taken into account by councils when preparing their development plans, and they are very much a material consideration in planning decisions. The planning system is centred on effective community engagement, so when preparing a design code that sets the design standard for a local area, or when determining a planning application, there is an opportunity for  everyone, including women and all those with an interest in personal safety, to help shape new buildings, streets and public spaces. In that sense, there is already a strong requirement that the planning system should do all it can to help ensure the safety of women and, indeed, all members of the community.

Matt Western: The Minister is generous in giving way, and I hear what he is saying. Perhaps he could meet me to discuss this, but I have very upset, angry and distraught people, particularly women, on this new estate, where there is no lighting on certain streets and where some pathways do not yet exist. There seems to be no provision for those pathways.

Stuart Andrew: I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we are currently considering a raft of planning issues, so perhaps this is something we can discuss.
The Department for Transport is also giving councils further guidance on street design. We are working closely with DFT on a revised “Manual for Streets”, for all councils in England to use when designing new roads and pedestrianised routes. It helps councils to make sure that paths and public spaces are overlooked by residential buildings, have good lighting and do not suffer from blind corners or other design flaws that can be exploited by criminals.
Last year, DFT launched a call for evidence on personal safety measures in streets and public spaces, to find out more about how people, particularly women, feel unsafe when using the street and experience harassment, intimidation or unwanted sexual behaviour in public spaces. The aim was to gather information to understand the problem, identify possible solutions and include what works and, more importantly, what does not work in that space. A new version of the guidance is set to be published later this year.
Another crucial safeguard in protecting women’s safety through the planning system is the support and advice on Secured by Design standards, which is available from the police through a network of designing out crime officers across the UK. These officers play a key role because they can liaise directly with the architects, designers and local planning authorities on a particular planning application. They can also provide specialist advice on the security of new buildings, as well the refurbishment of old ones, so they are as safe as they can be. Ensuring that consultation with Secured by Design and other experts in the field is taking place right from the start of the design stage is the best way to ensure that a proposed development protects women, girls and anyone else who may feel vulnerable—that is where our focus must be.
That said, the Government wholeheartedly agree that we need to do more to protect vulnerable women, which is why, as hon. Members will know, in July last year we published our cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy. It sets out our ambition to ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere—at home, online and on the streets. The strategy presents a number of measures designed to improve women’s safety, including the online tool StreetSafe, which encourages women and girls to anonymously report areas where they have felt unsafe, whether that is because of poor lighting, a lack of CCTV coverage or the people who were around them.
Since 2020, we have also provided £70 million to police and crime commissioners and councils in England and Wales through our flagship safer streets fund.  That initiative is specifically focused on preventing neighbourhood crime, crime in public spaces and violence against women and girls. It has funded life-saving projects comprising not only traditional crime prevention techniques, such as better CCTV and street lighting, but creative interventions such as bystander training and educational initiatives to change attitudes and raise awareness. We are committing a further £150 million to the safer streets programme over the next three years, with tackling neighbourhood crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls as its key objectives.
The Government recognise that the built environment has a significant impact on people’s health and wellbeing, so it needs to feel safe and secure for every member of the community. Through the design guide and the design code, we are giving both councils and developers the tools they need to create green, sustainable neighbourhoods with safety at their very heart. Those tools are already being put into action. Let me give a couple of examples: in Cambridge, the development at Marmalade Lane was designed to prioritise pedestrians, with a focus on  social interaction; and Horsted Park in Kent was designed with visibility over parking spaces, with tree and shrub planting kept low to maintain visibility along the street and towards front doors—that is exactly the point that the hon Lady mentioned.
Our cities are also making improvements to existing public spaces, with good maintenance and management and a focus on lighting design that involves collaboration with a wide range of groups. We are also doubling our efforts to protect women and girls not just through effective planning but through a comprehensive strategy to reduce the prevalence of violence against them in the long term. That rightly means a wide range of Departments treating this with the urgency it deserves. I can give the hon. Member for Edinburgh West the commitment today that I will work with her and Members on both sides of the House to deliver on that mission, ensuring that housing and planning policy is playing its part in creating a safer society for all, which I am sure we all want to see.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.